One T or two - if one, on who?
 

On other recent threads, we've discussed assessing technicals to the coach, the team or to specific players for certain acts. Here's a hypothetical we can discuss.

NF rules. During a dead ball, Coach A loudly tells A1 to punch B1 in the face and you hear this. A1 does so. Do you have a flagrant technical only on Coach A, only on A1 or do you call one on each? Do you agree any foul(s) should be a flagrant?

Flagrant technical fouls for each.

That's a flagrant technical foul right there as soon as you heard the coach say that imo. Write complete details on the score sheet, and after the game write a report up and send it in. And you should be proactive and also warn the coach's replacement that if any player of his punches someone they will be gone immediately too.

I'd also tell the home management rep immediately as to what happened, whether it was the home or visiting coach that got tossed.

Nip it, nip it in the bud.

This would be different then hearing a coach swear which would be an auto "T". Until there is an actual punch in the face, I am not sure you can do anything. If there is no action, it becomes a 'he said/she said" incident. The coach could claim it is a figure of speech, or that you misheard what they said. If there was nothing else going on then just the coach yelling at his team, then that would be one thing. If that coach is on the floor and has their arm around a player and is pointing at the other teams huddle and singling out a player, then I would hit the T right there.
In the OP, I would make sure that the whole crew that something might be afoot and get us all on the same page. Since the player took the swing they would both be gone. I would make sure that our supervisor knew of the incident and I am positive we would send a letter to the school stating that unless changes were made they would have to find another organization to cover their contests.

That's an easy one. Flagrant technical fouls for both the player and coach. Why wouldn't one penalize both actions?

Flagrant techs for both.

When I assess a Flagrant T I never take into consideration what a coach might claim afterwards before doing so. Additionally the coaches flagrant act stands on its own. It does not become flagrant because the order was carried out.

Using your own thinking Why are they both gone if the player swings? If you couldn't prove the coach gave the command when you first heard it, you can not prove it later either. Besides, if you wait until command is carried out before punishing the coach what makes you think he won't still use the same arguments you mentioned.

1. Coach swearing isn't an auto-T, IMO. 99% of the time? Maybe. 90%? Sure. But not automatic.
2. If a coach tells his player to punch another player, I cannot imagine a situation in which i wouldn't call a flagrant T.
3. You don't think telling a player to punch an opponent is worse than swearing?

+1

A coach telling a player to punch another player might in fact constitute a crime.

Coach is done regardless if the player throws or connects the punch.

player is done if they throw it.

Either way, coach is going.

I agree- coach swearing not an auto T. If they are pissed at their players or made a boneheaded mistake then they can vent their frustration at themselves and their team. If their venting is loud enough that people in the crowd can hear it, well then we have an issue.

If their swearing is directed at me, well then we have another issue.

Easiest call of the game. Flagrant on both.

According to a recent gallup poll of 10,000 fans, the easiest call of the game is that their player got fouled :)

So for arguments sake, since we all like a good argument, what if a coach yells something like the following:

"Next time he sets a moving screen, blast right through it!"

"Foul him!!!" ..... or other variations thereof at the end of a game...

In this case, do we T for the "blast through" comment? call an intentional in either case? thoughts?

1) I'd tell the coach that if his player blasts through the screen, the call is going to be either an intentional foul or a flagrant foul, depending on the severity of the contact. And if it is a flagrant foul, the coach would be getting a flagrant "T" also for telling one of his players to go after an opponent like that.

2) Call what actually happens, not the instructions. If the player makes a legitimate attempt to play the ball, you shouldn't call an intentional foul even though you know the team wanted to foul. From POE 3B in the NFHS 2004-05 rulebook:
"There is a right way and a wrong way to foul. Coaches must instruct their players in the proper technique for strategic fouling. "Going for the ball" is a common phrase heard, but intentional fouls should still be called on players who go for the ball if it is not done properly. Conversely, a coach who yells "Foul!" instructions to his or her team does NOT mean that the ensuing foul is "automatically" an intentional foul- even though it is a strategic foul designed to stop the clock. Coaches, officials,players, fans and administrators must accept fouling as a legitimate coaching strategy.".

Eject everybody. Yes. Both.

Wow... what an enormous pile of nonsense.

ANY Tech for something a coach says "could" become a he said she said ... he "could" claim it as a figure of speech, and he "could" say you misheard him (heck ... this happens all the time!) but it doesn't matter - you heard it, and you have the responsibility to act on it. You T this IMMEDIATELY, and eject, and report.

It doesn't matter what the coach claims. There is not equal authority out on the court between coaches and officials. We are the judge, jury and executioner. If we hear it, that's it - period.

Instead of the 'punch him in the face' comment you have this instead.

A1 fouls B1 on a rebound, let's say it's a 'hard' foul. Coach B tells B1, "if he does that again, put him on his a$$", and you hear the coach say this. Same penalty for the coach as in the OP?

Hard to say. I will definitely address it: it's probably an unsporting T, but probably not flagrant. "Retaliate!" is not quite the same as "punch him in the face!"

Why is this a pile of nonsense? At what point do we draw the line when we do and do not penalize what a coach says? Several posts have stated phrases that coaches use that we ignore. I know that if/when I hear something akin to this, my red flag goes up and I make sure we as a crew are on the same page and on 'heightened alert'.
I gave an instance where I would toss the coach immediately, but the OP was more vague. Was the coach responding to a player who caught a cheap shot and was telling them to punch the player in the face if it happens again? Was the coaches team up and he was telling his players now was the time to "Punch them in the face" for the knockout? Is the coach exhorting his team to toughen up and punch the other team in the face defensively? Same to a player. All of these are phrases I have heard coaches use even though I think there are better phrases to use to get the point across.

Jud, first off ... if "Punch him in the face? (regardless of what happens beforehand) is not across your line, I strongly suggest that you redraw it. It's been stated above (and accurately) that just telling a kid to punch another kid is a crime in some places.

Second - it was really the rest of your post that was complete nonsense. You can't justify not giving a tech because the coach might disagree with you, and it would end being he-said-she-said. That's so far down the bottomless pit of absurdity, I can't even fathom thinking this way. ALL of your justifications for not Teeing this guy up and/or tossing him were nearly as absurd.

I agree 100%. Since this would be something I would toss a coach for, I would want to make sure it was a 100% righteous ejection. There are too many instances of "yeah,but.." ejections from both officials and supervisors. "Yeah, it was good by rule, but...______ ; could you have warned, ignored, are you sure, its hard to see on video etc" While I will treat a "T" like any other foul, ejections, again IMO, are at a whole other level. Because once you get in a pi%&$ contest with the state association, I don't just want to win, I want to win BIG with no doubt and destroy the credibility of that coach for questioning my decision. OK maybe that is my ego, but I have had to do it a couple of times and there was no doubt that what I did was correct, and that the coaches recollections of events were not 'borne out by the game video'. Love that phrase!

Wow. Not trying to pile on here... but based on this post, you have your priorities completely out of whack. "Going to the state" and what happens there should have no bearing on whether your appropriately officate your games. CALL THE GAME. Let the rest fall where they may.

I don't think there's much ambiguity here. I've never heard a coach use "punch in the face" as a euphemism for "finish them off." Further, specifying the request to punch a specific player (B1) pretty much removes any ambiguity you might have felt was present.
Personally, if I think it might be some sort of poorly chosen euphemism, I might consider a regular T. But the way the OP is presented, the coach is done.

Consider it this way, by tossing the coach you're making it clear that his actions and words aren't going to be tolerated, and you're making it significantly less likely that A1 will follow his coach's directive.

Again, I won't say it's automatic, but I can't imagine a scenario where this doesn't get a flagrant T in my game.

I am pretty happy with where my line is drawn. As for 'being a crime' one of the things you would have to prove would be that there was no other way to interpret that type of instruction. It can be easily proved that the phrase used can have multiple meanings depending on the situation. There was also no action based on the comments so you could not prove intent either. But I digress. Again, I don't like the terminology but you would be hard press to make it criminal
As for you second point, hopefully I clarified what I meant and why I said the 'he said/she said' thing. If not, I can try again.

And if, after you simply "warn" the coach, A1 proceeds to punch B1 in the face, how are you going to respond to the state telling you that you should have taken care of business?

Don't think you are piling on at all. I do call the game and let the chips fall where they may. If I have to toss a coach, I make sure that it is for a VERY good reason b/c it is going to go to another level and you better have your ducks in a row. Again, I am only discussing ejections, not garden variety "T's"

Good point. I am not sure I said I would warn the coach but I haven't re read my posts. I believe I stated I would either toss them right away, or share info on what I thought I heard with my crew so we would have our antenae up. What i know for sure would be that I would have a VERY quick whistle on ANY contact especially involving those players.
However, would it be any different if you A) Simply "T'd" the coach and the player still punched or B) Ejected the coach and the player still punched? The end results are still the same. This is where some hypotheticals then go awry. In A would you toss the player AND the coach even though you already T'd the coach for the infraction? In B, should you have sent the player off along with the coach?
Too many what if's.....

If you don't even warn the coach, I think you're taking an even bigger risk that A1 follows his orders. Personally, I prefer the type of warning that will resonate over a career; a flagrant T. Player gets to see an object lesson in sportsmanship. Coach gets to think about his words; and gets a very clear lesson for future games on what's intolerable.

And, if it was simply some ill-advised euphemism, then he can explain to the state that he wasn't being literal when he said to punch B1 in the face and they can decide whether and when he can coach again.

I almost forgot: if I, for whatever reason I can't fathom, decided to give the coach a standard T, it would come with a warning. Here's how I imagine that would play out:
Coach: "Punch B1 in the face."
Me: whack!
Coach: "It's a figure of speech, I wasn't being literal."
Me, after I report it to the table: "Good, because if he follows through, not only will he be charged with a flagrant, but you'll get another T and it'll also be flagrant."

Sigh... there's too much in the last three posts that has me saying WTH... so I'll narrow it to 3. You've made my point here. Your priorities are way wrong. You want to make sure your ejections are for good reason because it's going to go to another level. Awful. You should want to make sure your ejections are for good reason simply because ejections should only be for a good reason.

Worse. Now, because you ignored tossing the coach when it was warranted, you are changing the way you would call the game regarding the players he was talking to and about. You don't see the problem with that? If you would have tossed the coach when you should have, you wouldn't have to penalize the players for the coach's actions.

And the worst...

You just illustrated why you should have ejected him. If you T him and the player follows directions, you can't very well eject the coach now. (A) is a referee Effing up his job. In (B) you eject the coach when he said what he said. HOPEFULLY, the rest of the team gets the message and you prevent the punch, but if you don't, absolutely you toss the kid, and no, of course you wouldn't toss the kid before he does anything.

I'm flabbergasted that you would allow a coach to give "loud" instructions to a player to do something that you would CERTAINLY eject for (without thinking or worrying about having to defend yourself to the state), and not eject him for giving those instructions.

(And as to the criminality, you're wrong. The coach's statements would speak for themselves - HE would have to prove that it was impossible for the child to interpret his instructions to mean that he should punch the other kid. And HE would be in jail (at least one example of this from baseball, nearly identical, except involving throwing a ball at a player and not a punch)).

Amen, Mike.

We have the responsibility to make sure that the game is played in a safe enviroment that's completely free of threats, intimidation or any other crap like this. And if an official don't have the balls to take care of bidness, then he should be coaching, not officiating. We NEVER make any call out there while worrying if a coach might disagree with it.

Well said. You're thinking like an official.

Good thing, or I'd think I didn't do a very good job last night.

ty!

Somehow, I think that you didn't spend very much time worrying about what the coach mighta thought of you or your calls.:)

The guy in the mirror is the guy that you have to keep happy. And some people have to learn that.

Yup. I've worked more summer ball this year than I have in the past, and I'm amazed at how few of these coaches know how to ask a question. Lots of statements starting with "that's a," but very few questions.

I am just presenting how the scenario would play out. Some have said they would only give a "T", some said "Flagrant T" . SNAQ asked what would happen if nothing were done to the coach and the kid went out and punched the player. The response I gave was what would happen if you DID do something about the coach and the kid STILL punched him.
As for "loudly" I hate to split hairs but what is "loudly"? Is it a small gym with 8 people in it and everyone heard? Is it a big gym with 1000's of people in it and only I heard it? Did I catch the whole conversation? Is the coach not only yelling but being demonstrative? These are the things I take into consideration. None of which involves what the coach will think. I am cognisant of what the officiating board and state board think and I know that any ejection will get a thorough reveiw. Most likely the coach will complain about the ejection to "the powers that be". IMO, it is my job to have made sure that they don't have a leg to stand on. Obviously, I think this is a reasobable approach, and just as obviously some don't.
Of course, I am having flashbacks to The Great Santini, which would be a whole DIFFERENT story!
And legally, if your standard is followed, all the coach would have to do is show he has used that phrase before and no one was punched. The old saying is Its not what you know, its what you can prove.

But they do seem to have the "statement question" down:
"How can you call that in summer league"?
"We don't get that call during the season?"
"WHy can't you just let them play''?
"Why can't my player get that call?"
"Well how come that was a foul last week"?
"You know they don't call it this way over in ______"?
and everyones favorite:
"Why does Kobe get to wear a wrist braclet?"

I'm not going to try on the rest. You're obviously a lot smarter than me.

But you're flat wrong on this last. Real case - Dallas area coach told his pitcher, (he claims in jest), "If he does that crap again, nail him." Said player did "that crap" again - pitcher nailed him. Batter was in the hospital a while. Coach was sued by both the batter AND the pitcher, and brought up on criminal charges of Endangering a Child, Inciting a Minor to Commit a Crime, AND Battery. Guilty on all 3, lost both civil cases, and I recently heard he was denied parole a few weeks ago. This happened while I lived there, so at least 3 years ago.

That would be a step up from what I'm getting. And, FTR, I treat those "questions" just as I treat statements.

I think we agree on this actually. The difference is that the pitcher actually DID hit the batter. Same in this case if the player punched the other player. You also see lawsuits that involve coaches saying things like "We are going to run till we drop" and sure enough a player drops. That is why you are seeing an emphasis in coaching to steer away from things like "Suicides" "Killers" etc because of liability.
The point I was making was if the coach SAID it but the player didn't act on it you would have a tough case to prove criminality.

I think it's officiating in fear. Personally, I don't care if the state "upholds" my flagrant in this sort of situation. I will have done my job and slept well at night. If the state buys the coach's story, so be it. They will have my report. And if the coach has that much power and stature, it won't matter what the tape says anyway.

I don't reserve technical fouls for actions or words that are picked up on video tape. Would you call the flagrant if you knew there was no video tape of the game at all?

I'm pretty sure the legal definition of assault can include verbal threats of violence. I could be wrong, however.

Oh I hear worse, but I thought this was a family friendly forum! My favorite being, incidentally enough, an ejection.
3 seconds left. Team A is ahead, fouls Team B after Team A misses a FT. Coach comes out onto the floor, all 5'3" of him, and wants to know how I can make that call b/c "This is AAU". So after I report the T, he is huddling with his players pushes two of them aside, stares at me and says, "We are going to win this game despite what this F'ing cracker and Uncle Tom call". My partner was near me and said "You want me to get that or do you want it" I let him take it b/c after all, I am just a giver at heart!:D

Great point, and I personally make the differentiation between a "T" and a Flagrant/andor ejection. Despite my Mr Joviality persona, I used to be one that would rather tick off a coach more than help them out. This caused me more problems than not early on. Working with my mentor, the line I drew seems to work for me. Basically, if I give a T treat it like a foul, but anything more severe ask myself "Am I doing this to the coach, b/c I want to or b/c they deserve it." and/or "Will a neutral observer agree with my decision". While some may call that 'officiating scared' in my case it has really improved my game management and interaction skills

And you are correct about there being criminal verbal assault. However, in a sporting event, the bar is set rather high b/c of the nature of the environment. It is much lower in domestic violence cases or your local adult beverage consuming station.

I would only change it to, "would a neutral observer who knows everything I know agree with the call?" The simple fact is, sometimes coaches make comments that only we can hear that still have to be dealt with. The neutral observer in the stands may not hear it.
I just ask myself, "What would Bob do?"

agreed.

Fixed it for ya.....

crap, JR used blue font. I just lost about 4 bets.

Nope, the point that you made was that you wouldn't do a damn thing as an official about a coach saying sumthin' like that except maybe tell your partners. No "T"...no ejection...no nothing! And I don't think that anybody else that has responded so far has agreed with you. Shouldn't that tell you something?

Are you MTD Sr.'s evil spawn, by any chance? Trying to keep you on track relative to your original response back in post #4 of this thread is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Rest assured it ain't gonna be a habit. It was used to make a point only. :)

The usage of blue font is idiotic imo.

And thus the frost in Hell quickly thawed!

I ask myself, "WWESHD?" (What Would Earl Strom Have Done?)

This is where I say I would "T" the coach. I will change that to more accurately say I would TOSS the coach. Hopefully, that will clear up any confusion on your part.
Also I stated under which other causes I would toss the coach and the player. So, it looks like according to my Post #4, there are actually some things that I would do.
As for being MTD's relative, since I am adopted you never know. Heck, I could be one of YOUR long lost relatives!!!

Yup, you're MTD Sr's illegitimate son, fer sure. Highlight something that's completely irrelevant and ignore the part that everybody is disagreeing with.

You can't do anything without a actual punch? He said-she said? Worrying about what a coach might say?

Lah me.......:rolleyes:

Still tryin' to figure out where my line is drawn: Those "questions" get the whack-a-mole, right?

For me, not by itself. But the ABS meter goes up incrementally with each one, and depending on the tone, volume, and antics I'll put a stop to it sooner or later.

Naw, any like you we drown at birth. Old family tradition.

I'll add "frequency" to mbyron's list of "depending on." Usually the "questions" get ignored like the statements, however. If it starts to become a regular thing, then politely tell him that it needs to stop.

This helps. Thanks.

So far (summer league) I've been going with the "What makes me uncomfortable" standard (nothing yet), in addition to what JR said about playing in an safe atmosphere that is free from threats, intimidation, and other junk. I know there are some absolutes (cussing, integrity, etc) about what we should whack, but I'm concerned about over-reacting... I've done pretty well so far in "turning down the heat" in situations by talking and using a smile with a sense of humor, but as I've said in other posts, this is a whole new world to me. I will take care of bidness in the obvious instances but am still learning that intensity and frequency balance.

During the summer one of my personal POEs has been game management, which for me means giving more attention to what's happening around the game as well. I've been trying to keep track of fouls, the score, and the possession arrow without having to ask the table. I'm not there yet, but I think I'm going in the right direction. Coaches have been pretty well-behaved and I've only had one incident with a parent. I didn't run him but he got the message and kept his mouth shut the rest of the game. AND he kept it shut the next day as well!

Y'all have been very helpful in my line coming into focus. I hope to make everyone here proud. :D

Thanks.

I hope you mean only team, not individual, fouls and only because during summer league it's more likely the scorers might lose track.

Developing your own standards for the ABS and "borderline" stuff just takes time and experience.

True. In my experience, the forum has been useful in helping lower the bar for the ABS T. There's just no good reason to endure a steaming pile.

Oh yeah, for the bonus... Already had it happen. :D