Officials Talk Too Much To Coaches....
 

Andy Katz's Daily Word: Why do officials and coaches converse so much? - ESPN

Interesting read.

My two favorite quotes.....
 

As has been stated on this Forum many times.......



"My perspective is that all a referee should do is answer a question in a courteous and respectful manner," Adams said. "Don't have to carry on an ongoing dialogue."

"I think we're much better off when referees just ref and when coaches just coach," Adams said.

and yet the officials who won't carry on the dialogue with the coaches are accused of being unapproachable and don't get hired.

How much is too much?
 

Certainly is a very fine line.

I agree with those statements, but coaches are the ones that like to talk about everything. They want an explanation about everything. And when you do not talk to them or ignore them they take offense to that. My goal as an official is never to have those conversations all the time, but some coaches insist on it.

In my game over the weekend where I was on TV, one of the coaches wanted to talk to me about everything no matter what happened or where it happened. He even got upset with me about a call that my partner made and wanted me to explain it as I was a T and my partner was the L. The coach wanted to know why he (my partner) called an out of bounds play instead of a foul. Coaches insist on these engagements, not officials. And you can even see a time on the video where the coach starts talking to me and I had nothing to say but respond to his questions.

I would rather go through games and hardly talk to a coach unless there is a really unusual situation they need some explanation for.

Peace

Agreed
 

Had a JV Coach this yr who really took offense to me not stopping to chat, "when he wanted to have a conversation about one of my calls." There was just no time.

I caught up to him a bit later during a foul shot for a short chat when I was T. But, I almost had to pop/whack/T him up (whatever your term is) for his antics and comments for me "not stopping." Silly.

The job that we have to do doesn't lend itself to absolutes. It's impossible to make hard and fast, one-size-fits-all directives to cover all situations. Sometimes it's better to talk; some times it's better to walk. The officials who are noted for being good game-managers know when to try to do something that fits the situation that they are looking at in that particular point of time. And even then, they'll still run into a situation where all the game management skills in the world can't stop the Huggins' of the world from going off and having to be dealt with.

Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do. And that's the same at any level.

JMO.

Always ...
 

It's always best to walk the talk.

Absolutely 100 percent agree. Couldn't be said better.

[QUOTE=JRutledge;664442]I agree with those statements, but coaches are the ones that like to talk about everything. They want an explanation about everything. And when you do not talk to them or ignore them they take offense to that. My goal as an official is never to have those conversations all the time, but some coaches insist on it.

Peace[/QUOTE/]

Couldn't agree more. We don't initiate the conversations. I will say I was mildly impressed that Katz didn't throw all of the blame on the officials and noted that the coaches are part of the problem. I also agreed that the official in the Huggins incident should not have been in the huddle like that. Talk outside the huddle quickly and get away.

[quote=doubleringer;664738]That's easy to say. I had a coach who wanted to come across the court screaming at me about a no call during a timeout. I could stand there, let him yell for a second or two and then whack him OR I could walk over, get him back to his huddle, let him talk (since I'm not across the court anymore), etc., and maybe defuse the situation Which choice is the right one? It depends, IMO. Either way I'm unapproachable OR I look like the coach's minion.

I do know this, if I walk over there I will allow a bit more than I would long distance precisely because of the perception that me coming over looks like I'm coming over to get him if I call a technical foul. He doesn't get free reign to call me a MF or anything like that, though. If he really earns one, I would do exactly as Stuart did. I would walk away out of the huddle, go to midcourt, and assess a technical foul. Patient whistle and all that.... :D

You can't be afraid to give a technical foul or eject someone, but you need to make sure the penalty fits the crime. I do consider how the report will read because I have to file one for every coach technical foul in this state.

[QUOTE=RichMSN;664768]Agreed - BUT - the coach doesn't get any extra rope. I will call the 2nd T using the same criteria as the first. He doesn't get "extra" leeway because he has already been WHACKED once.

[quote=chartrusepengui;664773]You may have missed my point. EVERY technical is (should be) a strong technical, one which you will write up and everyone from the AD to the commissioner to the state office will look at and say, "Yeah, that's a technical."

If a coach gets a first technical, in my mind it's over. Clean slate except for the seatbelt rule, no carry-over. I'm sure many will disagree, but a coach shouldn't be afraid to disagree or ask questions just cause he got whacked earlier. Some coaches don't understand that -- I whacked one earlier this season and he asked me at halftime on the way off if it would affect him the second half -- I'd never met him before -- and I said, "nope, that's all over with" and meant it.

Sorry I misinterpreted your post. I understand now and agree with what you are saying. I don't "hold a grudge" or have a quick whistle on a second T. I try and handle them all exactly the same. That said - I haven't had more than 1 or 2 occasions in 25+ years of officiating where I've felt I've had to go to the second T. Usually 1 is all it takes.

Oh? Seeing no one else so far has been able to tell us exactly why Stuart went into the huddle, could you please share with us then the real reason why Stuart went into the huddle?

I know that Katz asked the exact same question in his column also. Maybe you can let him know too.

Seeing as you're so positive that he was wrong to do that, I'd really like to know the real reason for Stuart making such an egregious error in judgment.

Thanks in advance for sharing your inside information with us.

I have no idea why he was in the huddle. I'm sure he was doing a good job of trying to communicate with the coaching staff. I'm just saying, from my perspective, I think it looks bad when officials are in the middle of the huddle like that. The same conversation can take place outside of the huddle.

Right or wrong, what you think is really not important. What I think is really not important. It is really not important when I do not have all the details and I have been in situations where things are said that not even my partners know what was said to me. I am not going to justify my actions to anyone unless that is my supervisor and he takes a position on the issue.

Peace

And that's the point that I've been trying to make(without be labelled lewd, crude & rude again :)). As Jeff said, we don't have all of the details. There might have been a very good reason for Stuart to go into the huddle.I don't see how anybody can say it looks bad when nobody seems to know why Stuart was in there in ther first place.

I also don't think that you can make a hard -and-fast statement that officials should stay out of huddles. They are legitimate times that we do have to go into one. And if we do and somebody asks a question, we have to respond.

I have no problem with somebody saying it looks bad.

But you can't conclude that it was bad without knowing the reason he did it AND being in a position to judge whether the reason was good or bad. I for one am missing BOTH of those pieces.

Example which may or may not apply (I haven't seen the video):
We're told to get into the huddles at the first horn and get them out. Normally, this means we're standing about 2 feet from the players with a hand in the air. We're wide open for questions at this point, so things could go south quickly.

Im just asking this in total sincerity... What reason is there to go into a team's huddle??

My opinion is to rarely, if ever, go (never say never, but darn close- 1%). If the coach was yelling at you and now he is back in his huddle coaching, fine, we are back to business as usual. If you wanna relay something to the HC or AC that is not time critical and can absolutely wait, I think it is appropriate to do so after the horn and the huddle is broken. You're interrupting their time. Granted I didn't see the Huggins' incident nor do I remotely know the reason in which he went into the huddle, but my opinion is to almost never go.

The only time I can think that I have walked in on a huddle is to relay to a coach that there wasn't possession of the ball and the clock will not be at 23, but instead at 6. That is immediate pertinent info. The coach might have been drawing up a set that takes 15-20 sec. but he only has 6, so now we have not done a good job of managing the game.

I am honestly up for hearing more reasons of why you would enter a huddle during a TO cause I will use them if I need to.

1) Agree personally with that opinion. Most things can wait. But maybe not all.

2) And right there might be a reason why we sometimes do have to go into a huddle. If you discover the shot clock was wrongly re-set and there are now 3 seconds on the clock rather than 32, the coach should have that info before he's done setting his offense/defense.Or if a 2 was changed to a 3, and a team now needs a three for a late tie, the respective coaches should also know that immediately. Time added or deducted late in a game can be critical also to a coaching decision. Wrong information on a scoreboard should be relayed also. If a team has 6 fouls in the book and the scoreboard shows 5, the coach might want to change mind about whether to foul immediately or play defense.

And there might also be a completely different but equally valid reason to go into the huddle. The point that I was making was that I don't know why Stuart went into the huddle at that particular time during that game and therefore I hate to see people second-guessing him for doing so.

Fair enough