Technical or no Technical?

[Kingsman1288]

To answer Texas Aggie, there was no need for me to explain the T. My partner saw me give it out and moved where he needed to be according to our pre-game. Despite our disagreement over the T after the game, during the game I never felt like he undercut me at all.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Kingsman1288

To answer Texas Aggie, there was no need for me to explain the T. My partner saw me give it out and moved where he needed to be according to our pre-game. Despite our disagreement over the T after the game, during the game I never felt like he undercut me at all.

That's good. It sounds like he (and you) handled things appropriately during the game. As for the discussion afterwards, unless he was telling you you screwed up or was being a jerk towards you, it was just his opinion. You can take it or leave it...personally, I would leave that advice behind because the Coach earned his T.

[Texas Aggie]

That is not the partner's business.

Huh? This isn't YOUR game; it is a game worked by all of you. You better make it your business.

For one that slows down the process of administration

We aren't talking about an investigative report with witnesses and a cross examination; this can be done very quickly. "The T was issued because he kicked the table after I called the foul. We're going to back everyone up, shoot the original foul shots and then the T. I'll go opposite and handle the throw-in. Anything else? Can you deal with the coach over here?"

I timed myself and that took all of about 12 second. I'd probably do it faster with the adrenaline going.

Even if it did take a bit longer, what's the harm? Rushing or looking rushed is much worse than being or acting deliberate. Again, we aren't talking about 10 minutes; maybe 30 seconds more at the most. You can't tell me that that will hurt anything.

it is unnecessary to my job.

Couldn't disagree more. You need to know what is going down in your game as far as what was said IF the calling official feels its important to let you know -- for example, if you are the R. You can always pregame and say, "hey, we aren't getting into a big discussion here -- just the brief highlights of what we need to know and let's move on." This is an area where we trust our partners to tell us what we need to know or ignore what we don't.

Can you give me an example of a call I make against a coach (T) that you don't need to know the particulars of?

Again, part of what I'm trying to do is to slow things down. When you are dealing with more than one foul on a play, especially with guys that worked a college game last night, it may take a few seconds to clarify how to proceed. Don't be afraid to take the time and the attitude of "I don't really need to know all that" makes me think you're more concerned about getting things done in a timely fashion than slowing the pace down to get everything right. My point is that this is a very dangerous way of thinking. I've seen and been in games that got royally screwed up because guys got in a big hurry. If my explanation slows all that down, it was indeed worth it.

Guys, I've done this sort of thing about 7-9 times over the last 3 years or so in hoops and probably a lot more in football (after a flag). In none of these situations did the game "stall." The risk of rushing and doing or saying something you will regret later far outweighs taking another 30-45 seconds.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

This is the problem I see from this case study. I don't have a problem with the T, but you and your partner need to get together (keeping an eye on the players while doing it) and discuss the T. This does several things: 1) informs the partner so he can go talk with the coach and explain the call if needed and if possible; 2) it slows everyone down and gets you thinking exactly what needs to be done, where, and with whom; run off too quickly and you go to the wrong basket, or something similar; 3) it gives everyone the second or two to calm down and get the emotions under control.

But you need to pregame this. I say something like, "we will get together on any T -- NOT TO TRY AND TAKE THE CALL AWAY or even discourage it -- but for the 3 reasons above. I can't emphasize, however, the need to keep an eye on the players.

I'm emailing this to tomegun.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm emailing this to tomegun.

You're a no good dirty rat.

[constable]

Originally Posted by Kingsman1288

I was working a spring tournament over this past weekend and had a discussion with my partner over a technical I issued to a coach. The situation goes like this...

Fairly close game with about 10 minutes or so left in the second half when a player from white drives to the basket in my primary and hits a layup. I'm L tableside and I observed some contact, but in my judgment not enough for a foul so play continues. As the other team inbounds the ball, white coach pops off the bench and starts yelling for an And 1. I don't acknowledge him at first as he is just offering comments, but as I run by he yells "Blow the whistle son, it's not that hard" WHACK! So we administer the technical foul and the whole time I'm administering them, the coach is telling my partner I need to have a thicker skin, etc. Partner doesn't ask me until after the game why I gave the T, and after explaining to him why, he suggests I need to have a longer leash with coaches.

My main issue is this. I'm 21 and have been officiating since I was 16 and am entering my 2nd season of a full Varsity schedule. However, based on my appearance you would never know it. I'm on the thin side and I have what you might politely call a "baby-face". As a result, coaches tend to target me as someone they think they can work over. This is an issue that I find many of my partners can't understand, and it's not their fault for not being able to. Because of this, I have developed a bit of a quick trigger finger with Ts. For comments like the one above, is a T warranted? Or would I be better off doing as my partner suggested and giving coaches a longer leash? Any thoughts/input are much appreciated.

Edit: In case it's not clear, the original T was for what I perceived to be the coach talking down to me and trying to intimidate me because of my age.

Good job. He earned it.

[Judtech]

JURRASIC; You may need to brush up on both your reading an anatomical skills. I never said I would NOT give the coach an explaination and I didn't read that in TEXAS' post either. IMO, it is more a logistical issue. On a T the calling official goes opposite table, on any other foul the calling official goes table side. This makes any explaination more difficult for the calling official on a T than on a "normal" foul. If a coach wants to wait until I rotate over to discuss it, again, if appropriate, I will be more than happy to do so.
Perhaps I am not paranoid enough. Since I won't throw my partner under a bus, I just operate under the premise they won't either. If I see one of my partners talking to a coach after any type of call, my first thought is not "That SOB, why is he talking to that coach. I just know they are talking about me" To me, the more a crew can show cohesion, the stronger they look. So, if trusting your partners to do the right thing, and trusting in your own skills to do the right thing, is being weak, then I guess I am ( Not weak as Hell though, because if you have EVER smelled burning sulfur UGHH)
As for having no balls, I find so much wrong with that statement. In light of the fact that you have never seen me naked or vice versa, do we really need to play "whose is bigger"? Besides, a good friend of mine who was a wrestler only had one, and he was a pretty strong/bad dude!!! (Although I do hear that when you get older they sag more!)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

IMO, it is more a logistical issue. On a T the calling official goes opposite table, on any other foul the calling official goes table side.

In which officiating manual do you find this?

For the record, I can only recall one T where an explanation was needed; an AAU game where I rang up an assistant coach for standing up to yell at me about a call. HC thanked me after the game, stating he didn't know that rule. He may well have been truthful.

Every other T I've called and seen called, the coach knew why he got it. When they ask why, it's a purely rhetorical question that simply serves as their little protest. Sort of like when my kids cry "that's not fair" when I make a decision they don't like.

While I'm as likely as not to mock my kids when they do it, I think silence is a better option to the coach.

[26 Year Gap]

During a recent game, I called a ten second violation. The coach was upset [his team would go on to record one point in the 2nd half] and said, "I didn't see your count." He would have to have been blind to not see the visible count. A couple minutes later, while his team was on defense, he started "1001...1002". Tweet. The only explanation I gave was to my partner.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

During a recent game, I called a ten second violation. The coach was upset [his team would go on to record one point in the 2nd half] and said, "I didn't see your count." He would have to have been blind to not see the visible count. A couple minutes later, while his team was on defense, he started "1001...1002". Tweet. The only explanation I gave was to my partner.

And did your partner explain it to the exasperated and befuddled coach?

[Nevadaref]

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Did you get the buttered layered and extra salt? I also hope you snuck in your own soft drink, those things are EXPENSIVE!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

JURRASIC; You may need to brush up on both your reading an anatomical skills. I never said I would NOT give the coach an explaination and I didn't read that in TEXAS' post either.

Maybe you ought to go back and read what you both wrote:

Judtech- "Now when my partner goes to the coach he can tell them what happened."

Texas Aggie- "informs the partner so that he can go talk with the coach and explain if needed and if possible."

If YOU make the call, then YOU should be the ONLY one explaining the call if a coach asks for an explanation. Not your partner. Not ever. And if you go back and read the posts in this thread, you'll find that opinion is unanimous from all of the other responding posters.

Again, your partner should never be discussing your call with a coach. Ever!

That is terrible advice from both you and Texas Aggie. And I'm sureashell not the only one telling both of you that.

You seem to have real problems comprehending what people are trying to tell you.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Judtech- "Now when my partner goes to the coach he can tell them what happened."
Texas Aggie- "informs the partner so that he can go talk with the coach and explain if needed and if possible."
Again, your partner should never be discussing your call with a coach. Ever!
That is terrible advice from both you and Texas Aggie. And I'm sureashell not the only one telling both of you that.
You seem to have real problems comprehending what people are trying to tell you.

Yet strangly absent from either of those quotes were words to the effect "So I don't have to talk to the coach" Before jumping to conclusions, you should have all the information. You just assumed that I would not talk to a coach about a situation. No one asked (except SNAQdaddy) where we position ourselves on 3 person in this situation. No one asked what we would do in a 2 person crew where the calling offiical was not administering FT's. No one asked what we would do in 3 person crew where the calling official stays table side. Knowing the answers to these questions would give you a better understanding of where we are coming from. Nope, you just wanted to jump in and think the worst of two of your fellow officials. Personally, I prefer to think the best of my fellow officials.
What there seems to be is a difference of norms in different areas. In the college or high school games called in this area, there isnt the sensitivity to discussing calls (appropriately) with coaches. Case in point: In a game tonite B50 drives to the basket and gets blocked by W44. Secondary defender W12 pushes B50 while in the air. Lead official comes out with a foul on W12. As we are on the other end, I am now standing next to W's coach. He is insistent that "it was all ball". I tell the coach "You are right 44 had a nice block, however, 12 was underneath and called for the push". According to you this is inappropriate b/c I am discussing my partners call. I should have said "coach, if you don't like it discuss it with them" According to the lead who made the call, who also happens to be one of the local assignors, pointed that situation out to the 3 'newbies' as a good example of a crew working together and diffusing a situation by calming down a coach. We teach our crews to trust each other. But heaven help you after the game if syou sell a fellow official out to a coach!
SNAQmasterflash: Yeah, if it is a player "T" then we usually stay table side. If it is a coach "T" we usually send them opposite. That way if the coach needs to have an early exit, there will be another official right there to do the honors. The thought process is that it avoids the perception that a particular official is "out to get" a coach. That's not to say the calling official on the other side of the floor wont come toss the coach!!!!

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Yet strangly absent from either of those quotes were words to the effect "So I don't have to talk to the coach" ...

I'm still trying to figure out why any official needs to "explain" or "tell" anything to a coach after that coach has received a Technical.