Technical or no Technical?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

He crapped on you. Righteous "T". He's not questioning your call; he's questioning your ability. That's making it personal. And that, you don't have to put up with. Good job taking care of bidness imo.

Btw, your partner needs to grow some balls.

I fully agree. If the OP had been my partner, I would have patted him on the back.

As for the partner, he needs a nutcheck.

[Texas Aggie]

Partner doesn't ask me until after the game why I gave the T

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

1) informs the partner so he can go talk with the coach and explain the call if needed and if possible

While I'm all for answering coaches' questions, the coach needs no explanation in this one.

Kingsman, here's your black-and-white justification: The coach gave you an order. No more discussion required.

[NCMTNRef]

Kingsman- I am struggling with the same issue right now as well. I am a young pup who had developed a reputation for a quick trigger. I think I have a long leash but I think that due to my age coaches try to push the envelope longer and they think they can get away with saying whatever they want to me and that I wont whack them.

[Nevadaref]

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.

After I call a T, I will get together with my partner (or one of them if there are two) and inform him which individual was charged with the T. Also, we will discuss if there are any other calls on the play and how the game will resume. Lastly, we will make sure that we know which basket we are going to shoot at.

What we will not discuss is WHY the technical foul was assessed. That is not the partner's business. If the coach or captain wants an explanation, it needs to come from the calling official.

[JRutledge]

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 disagree. I just need to know that a T was given and what kind of T was given. I do not need to know why the T was given. For one that slows down the process of administration and it is unnecessary to my job. We just need to get together so we can put the ball back in the proper place or make sure we are doing everything in the right order. Why a T is given is stuff for after the game. I do not need to know he called him a name or said something specific at the time we talk on the floor. But that is just me.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

LOCK THE THREAD!
SHUT DOWN THE FORUM!!!

Rut and I agree.

[zebraman]

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

I strongly disagree. Part of my pregame is that a partner does NOT go talk to the coach that just got whacked by one of the other crew members. We need crew integrity at that point. I have had a partner do that to me twice in my career and I can remember both times VIVIDLY. It looked to everyone in the gym like my partner did not support me. Bad, bad, bad........... Those might be the only two times in my career when I had a very stern conversation with a partner after a game.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by zebraman

I strongly disagree. Part of my pregame is that a partner does NOT go talk to the coach that just got whacked by one of the other crew members. We need crew integrity at that point. I have had a partner do that to me twice in my career and I can remember both times VIVIDLY. It looked to everyone in the gym like my partner did not support me. Bad, bad, bad........... Those might be the only two times in my career when I had a very stern conversation with a partner after a game.

I agree with this...and everybody else that basically had the same take. Looks like it's almost unanimous so far that having your partner explain your call is never a good idea. The calling official is the only official that should be commenting on a call.

[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.

[Judtech]

Why do we want to have secrets from our partners? If I issue a T on a player, my partners may not know why and the coach may not know why. It doesn't take a whole lot of time in our "post T conference" to go over the procedures involved and to add "Yeah 44 Blue told me he hadn't seen a call that bad since Jurassic did a game!" Now when my partner goes to the coach he can tell them what happened. What is wrong with that? It sounds a whole lot better, then telling the coach "I don't know". If I whach a coach, what is wrong with telling my partner why? I may have heard them say something, and they may have thought I "T'd" them for an action that THEY saw and I may have missed.
IMO, a key to good officiating is good communication. We communicate on everything else why make an exception for this? It should be more important in emotionally charged situations, which T's sometimes are. If I think that it was a 'soft' T I certainly wouldn't bring it up until we were in the locker room, and I would expect the same from my partner. Just like any other call.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Why do we want to have secrets from our partners? If I issue a T on a player, my partners may not know why and the coach may not know why. It doesn't take a whole lot of time in our "post T conference" to go over the procedures involved and to add "Yeah 44 Blue told me he hadn't seen a call that bad since Jurassic did a game!" Now when my partner goes to the coach he can tell them what happened. What is wrong with that? It sounds a whole lot better, then telling the coach "I don't know". If I whach a coach, what is wrong with telling my partner why? I may have heard them say something, and they may have thought I "T'd" them for an action that THEY saw and I may have missed.
IMO, a key to good officiating is good communication. We communicate on everything else why make an exception for this? It should be more important in emotionally charged situations, which T's sometimes are. If I think that it was a 'soft' T I certainly wouldn't bring it up until we were in the locker room, and I would expect the same from my partner. Just like any other call.

Coach: "Snaqwells, why'd he give me a T?"
Me: "Coach, you'll have to ask Rocky when the game flow allows it."

All your partner needs to know (all I'd need to know), just as Rut indicates, is the kind of T given and to whom. I will inform the coach that he no longer gets to use the coaching box, then I'm watching the players on the court.

We don't communicate everything.

When you call A1 for a travel, do you tell your partner that he tried to do a jump stop and just couldn't do it right?

When you call B1 for a foul, do you tell your partner that he undercut the shooter?

When you call B2 for reaching across the plane, do you tell your partner exactly which limb crossed and for how long?

No, you don't. All your partner needs to know is what was called, not why.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Coach: "Snaqwells, why'd he give me a T?"
Me: "Coach, you'll have to ask Rocky when the game flow allows it."

.

Ahem...thanks for deciding that I was the one who called the T. But since it was a three-person crew, it was actually Bhuck Elics that called the T, not me.

Fwiw, I agree with your main point here. I don't need to know what happened. If a coach asks me why my partner called a T, I will have a general idea - "Coach, he said something he shouldn't have.," or "Coach, you know what you did"...if Coach wants specifics, "Coach, here comes Bhuck. He'll give you all the details you could possibly want."

I have yet to see - in over 20 years of calling games - a T where the offending player/Coach really did not know what the T was for. Acting and theatrics aside, they know what they did.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Coach: "Snaqwells, why'd he give me a T?"
Me: "Coach, you'll have to ask Rocky when the game flow allows it."

All your partner needs to know (all I'd need to know), just as Rut indicates, is the kind of T given and to whom. I will inform the coach that he no longer gets to use the coaching box, then I'm watching the players on the court.

We don't communicate everything.

When you call A1 for a travel, do you tell your partner that he tried to do a jump stop and just couldn't do it right?

When you call B1 for a foul, do you tell your partner that he undercut the shooter?

When you call B2 for reaching across the plane, do you tell your partner exactly which limb crossed and for how long?

No, you don't. All your partner needs to know is what was called, not why.

SNAQ, you know I love ya....BUT
Coach: "Snaqwells, why'd he give me a T?"
Me: "Coach, you'll have to ask Rocky when the game flow allows it."
Coach: "Then what the hell were you two talking about out there" or "Obviously you don't think I deserved it either"
I will agree that MOST coaches know exactly what they did.
I will also disagree about your foul analogy. When we call a foul we don't just raise our fist and say "Foul". We signify the player and what type of foul. We let them know if it was a push, hit or hold. There are those that even make a sweeping motion with their hands to emphasize the push or smack the side of the head to signify they got hit in the head. To me, no different than a "T". So my hypothetical situational conversation would be
Coach "Jud, why did she give me a T?"
Me: "Coach, you called her a bad name"
Coach "No I didn't"
Me: "Coach, it's what we heard. (HS) Now you are going to have to take a seat coach for the rest of the game" and walk away.
I usually do what Padgett does, and just ask if I don't know. However ,when I am the calling official, I also let the partner know. I'm just a big fan of keeping my partners informed. Not such a fan of keeping secrets. But that is just me.