Ejection ...

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Telling an official that he and his partner had done a lousy job all night ISN'T personal?

That startement is derogatory and demeaning. Every official sets their own limits, but I personally will never let a coach get away with a comment like that.

Neither would I.

But you've taken what I said out of context. To make myself clear: there was nothing in the initial coach's comment that required an aggressive handling technique by the official.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by tref

If I'm not mistaken, the coach made that comment AFTER receiving his initial T.

You are mistaken. The coach got his initial "T" for telling Billy that he and his partner had done a lousy job all night. And he made that derogatory comment to Billy AFTER being warned. And AFTER getting his first "T" for making that derogatory comment, that coach then continued to complain and refused to shut up, earning himself the second "T".

Hey, if you want to ignore crap like that, be my guest.

If a coach makes a comment to you, as in Billy's sitch, you have 3 options. You can ignore the comment, issue a warning or hand out an immediate "T". And the option that you choose depends solely on your personal tolerance level. And I don't have a problem with that either; that's the way it should be. Pick what you think is best for that situation. But, big "but", if you do warn someone, then you HAVE to damnwell do something if the person that was warned simply ignores that warning and continues doing what he was just warned to stop doing.

If you want to ignore comments, fine. As I said, I don't have a problem with that; it's a personal choice dependant on the behavioral line that each individual official sets. But if you do warn someone, then you HAVE to follow through if that warning is ignored. That's my point. And that's why I think that Billy was completely justified in handing out the first technical foul. He chose to warn the coach(in a fairly benign, non-threatening innocuous manner btw). The coach ignored the warning and made a personal and derogatory remark. Billy had no choice imo but to follow through with his warning.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

To make myself clear: there was nothing in the initial coach's comment that required an aggressive handling technique by the official.

And to make myself clear, that is up to the calling official. The calling official decides what is the best thing to do at that point of time in a game. Billy, the calling official, decided that a warning was his best option. I refuse to second-guess Billy for choosing to do so, as I also wouldn't second-guess you for choosing to ignore the comment under the same circumstances. The course of action depends on each individual official's level of tolerance.

What bothers me though is the people that think a coach should get be able to get away with a personal, derogatory remark at an official AFTER they have been warned. If they're not going to follow up on a warning, whatinthehell is the use of giving out that warning in the first place?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

There is a difference between (i) "I hear you, coach" with no stop sign signal and (ii) "That's enough coach" with a stop sign.

IF the head coach were to continue after the official saying "I hear you, coach", THEN appropriate action would be taken by the official.

The sign of a fantastic official is to diffuse a situation so that it doesn't blow up. There was no opportunity of that happening in the OP.

1) Oh? And pray tell, whatinthehell is the difference? I sureasheck can't see one. In both cases, you're basically telling the coach that enough is enough. And in Billy's case, the head coach sureashell did continue. He told Billy that "my partner and I were doing a lousy job all night.". If Billy chose to ignore that, he shouldn't have said anything in the first place.

What are you going to do if the coach makes that same personal comment to you after you said "I hear you, coach"? Ignore it? If you do, may I suggest that you should turn in your "fantastic official" badge.

Taking care of bidness doesn't equate to a situation blowing up. We just react to the crap that comes our way. At least we should imo.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Oh? And pray tell, whatinthehell is the difference? I sureasheck can't see one. In both cases, you're basically telling the coach that enough is enough. And in Billy's case, the head coach sureashell did continue. He told Billy that "my partner and I were doing a lousy job all night.". If Billy chose to ignore that, he shouldn't have said anything in the first place.

What are you going to do if the coach makes that same personal comment to you after you said "I hear you, coach"? Ignore it? If you do, may I suggest that you should turn in your "fantastic official" badge.

Taking care of bidness doesn't equate to a situation blowing up. We just react to the crap that comes our way. At least we should imo.

Incorrect.

In the first case, the official is using a tool to deflate the situation. Understand the psychology of the coach: he simply wants to be heard. By the official acknowledging that he is aware of the coach's belief, he can avoid any esculation. By using a tool that brings attention to himself, ie. the stop sign, the official is telling the coach that his opinion doesn't matter. As true as that is, the coach thinking that his opinion does matter means that the game is over without incident.

Liken it to "get in, get done, get out".

At this point, I deal with the coach in a different manner. I certainly don't ignore it. Why would you think I would though, since I didn't ignore a lesser comment? Besides, I don't want to have to take my IAAFO badge off.

Taking care of bidness means giving a T when it is warranted, and avoiding it when possible.

[Adam]

Let me put my thoughts this way; as it played out, I have no problem with either T.
My comments here are strictly regarding the dreaded stop sign. There has been considerable debate on here whether the stop sign works or makes things worse. I've used it successfully on players, and I've used it unsuccessfully on coaches (followed almost immediately by a T).

Those who use it successfully have, almost unanimously, stated that it's an understood and accepted (even prescribed) mechanic in their areas; meaning the coaches are used to it as well and understand what it means. That makes sense to me (although I hate the crap about being able to see the whole thing on tape.) Summer ball, though, is not the time to use a signal that means one thing to regular season basketball coaches and something completely different to parents of teenagers. JMO, of course.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Incorrect.

In the first case, the official is using a tool to deflate the situation. Understand the psychology of the coach: he simply wants to be heard....
.

I agree with you Juggling. The two actions have entirely different meanings. "I hear you" is simply an acknowledgment that you've taken note of what the coach said (even if you promptly forget about it). It is not an instruction to the coach to stop....maybe an implied suggestion but nothing more. "That's enough coach" is a direct and clear instruction for the coach to cease whatever they're doing. I don't think I'd ever T a coach for saying something after "I hear you" unless what they say warrants the T all on its own.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And to make myself clear, that is up to the calling official. The calling official decides what is the best thing to do at that point of time in a game. Billy, the calling official, decided that a warning was his best option. I refuse to second-guess Billy for choosing to do so, as I also wouldn't second-guess you for choosing to ignore the comment under the same circumstances. The course of action depends on each individual official's level of tolerance.

What bothers me though is the people that think a coach should get be able to get away with a personal, derogatory remark at an official AFTER they have been warned. If they're not going to follow up on a warning, whatinthehell is the use of giving out that warning in the first place?

In the moment, of course it's up to the calling official. But Billy chose to bring it here, presumably to get our thoughts on it. Which we've done. Refusing to second-guess an official is a great quality in an assigner. However, it's a useless quality on a forum like this.

Perhaps I need to re-read this thread, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that the coach should be able to get away with anything, or that we shouldn't take care of business. Several of us suggested alternative responses we felt were less confrontational and that might have avoided an objectionable response from the coach. Might have. Perhaps. Maybe. But I don't recall any of us suggesting that we ignore the coach's insulting remarks.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

In the first case, the official is using a tool to deflate the situation. Understand the psychology of the coach: he simply wants to be heard. By the official acknowledging that he is aware of the coach's belief, he can avoid any esculation. By using a tool that brings attention to himself, ie. the stop sign, the official is telling the coach that his opinion doesn't matter. As true as that is, the coach thinking that his opinion does matter means that the game is over without incident.

Liken it to "get in, get done, get out".

Um, aren't all of you kinda forgetting that the damn coach was complaining about the officials missing a call? Whatinthehell does that have to do with the coach having an opinion that doesn't matter. The coach's opinion was that you missed a call. Period. And now he's complaining about you missing that call. Where does it say that the official now has to worry about the poor widdle coach's feelings?

The bottom line is whether you choose to ignore a coach complaining or do you do something about it. And that option is up to the calling official only.

Once the coach complains, you have 3 options....ignore the complaint, warn the coach about continuing to complain or deal with the complaining immediately with a "T". If you choose to warn the coach, the idea is to tell the coach that he's ALREADY had his say and that's enough. And if you can't tell that coach that he's had his say by simply raising your hand in a non-confrontational manner and saying "that's enough, coach", we might as well forget about trying to keep any game under a modicum of control and just sit back and let everybody do what they want to do. That act is about as innocuous as you can get.

Any escalation after receiving a warning about complaining about a call is solely up to the coach. If he wants to ignore a warning, he then deserves everything that he gets. And if an official wants to issue a warning and then refuses to follow up on that warning when a coach ignores it, then that official deserves everything that he gets also.

Every time you blow your whistle, you bring attention to yourself. If you want to stop a coach complaining, you have to bring attention to yourself in some way to do so. Thinking otherwise is just patently ridiculous imo.

Lah me......"he simply wants to be heard" Of course he wants to be heard. That's why he's COMPLAINING!!!!

And note that I am not saying that one way is better than another. Whatever works for you is the best way. I am saying though that imo there is nothing the matter with the way that Billy handled the coach's complaints. He warned the coach about continuing to complain and then he did something about it when the coach refused to heed his warning.

[rockyroad]

We can argue the "I would have done it this way" or the "Stop sign vs. not" stuff all summer...the bottom line here is that the Coach made an inappropriate comment which was addressed by the Official. The Coach continued to make inappropriate comments and was assessed a T. The Coach CONTINUED to make inappropriate comments and got a second T and ejection. End of story.

As I said earlier in this thread, after the first T I am going over to my partner - rookie or no - to have a discussion about what we are going to do. Get as far away as possible. But if he/she keeps it up, I will give him/her the second T. And this Coach absolutely deserved both of them. The rest of this whole thread is just arguing over style points.

[tref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

There is a difference between (i) "I hear you, coach" with no stop sign signal and (ii) "That's enough coach" with a stop sign.

IF the head coach were to continue after the official saying "I hear you, coach", THEN appropriate action would be taken by the official.

The sign of a fantastic official is to diffuse a situation so that it doesn't blow up. There was no opportunity of that happening in the OP.

There's a quote in Canadian football that goes like this: "the official who, through the influence of his presence, causes players to avoid rule violations has attained the perfect relationship to the game."
Certainly the quote applies to coaches as well. And there's no reason it doesn't apply to basketball as well, including basketball coaches.

The official's presence is in what he says, how he says, and his body language of how he expects the game to proceed.

+1

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

There has been considerable debate on here whether the stop sign works or makes things worse. I've used it successfully on players, and I've used it unsuccessfully on coaches (followed almost immediately by a T).

If I may add to your valid points, I believe that where the hand is located plays a huge part in the coaches reaction as well.
We cant just stick our hand in a grown mans face & expect him not to blow up!! I've seen the stop sign work effectively when given 4'-5' away & waist level.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Perhaps I need to re-read this thread, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that the coach should be able to get away with anything, or that we shouldn't take care of business. Several of us suggested alternative responses we felt were less confrontational and that might have avoided an objectionable response from the coach. Might have. Perhaps. Maybe. But I don't recall any of us suggesting that we ignore the coach's insulting remarks.

Neither do I!

Take care of business AT ALL TIMES, but manage the game within the game through effective communication tools to minimize potential flare-ups!

I guess that sorta game management isnt for everyone...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

We can argue the "I would have done it this way" or the "Stop sign vs. not" stuff all summer...the bottom line here is that the Coach made an inappropriate comment which was addressed by the Official. The Coach continued to make inappropriate comments and was assessed a T. The Coach CONTINUED to make inappropriate comments and got a second T and ejection. End of story.

As I said earlier in this thread, after the first T I am going over to my partner - rookie or no - to have a discussion about what we are going to do. Get as far away as possible. But if he/she keeps it up, I will give him/her the second T. And this Coach absolutely deserved both of them. The rest of this whole thread is just arguing over style points.

And the above is basically all that I've been trying to say.

[tref]

Billy, no knock on you &/or how you handled your situation. Anybody could be a backseat driver! Madd respect for you & the rules knowledge you've blessed me with over the years!
My thoughts were based on your question, "Has anybody ever have a game go so bad, so quick?"

JR, all I've been trying to say is:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Foul on White 11. I report it to the table. Table informs me that it is 11's fifth foul.

I inform White coach that 11 has five fouls.

IMO that begins the flash point right there. Sorta like asking a coach if its a full or 30 second t/o late in the 4th Q when he's been out of 30s since the 2nd Q You don't think he's gonna have something smart to say?

The game within the game! Know your surroundings, see the sub at the table & converse accordingly. ie: "Is the sub for 11, he has 5."
Since little hinges swing big doors, perhaps wording it that way could have eliminated the following:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

White Coach informs me that he already knows and has a sub available at the table and adds that we should have called a foul on Red previous to 11's foul.

I simply state "That's enough coach", while giving a non-threatening "stop sign". In twenty-nine years this technique has worked for me 99.5% of the time.

My point was, if a team is getting hammered & they have a player foul out in a EOG situation & we go tell the coach something (11 has 5 fouls) that he has already taken care of... he gets to chirp about a call he thinks he should've got!
I hear you, coach instead of that's enough coach w/stop sign could've minimized the chances of Ts being thrown... especially when he hadn't said a word all game. OR maybe not, but putting ourselves in the best position to difuse situations as opposed to pouring gasoline on it is always better. Wouldn't ya say?

If I "that's enoughed w/stop sign" every coach who said, "there was a foul on them before we fouled" there would be alot of assistants getting their opportunity. Because once we give that stop sign, we have got to take care of business on the next negative interaction. Cant take it back!

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by tref

JR, all I've been trying to say is:

IMO that begins the flash point right there. Sorta like asking a coach if its a full or 30 second t/o late in the 4th Q when he's been out of 30s since the 2nd Q You don't think he's gonna have something smart to say?

So, um, let me get this straight, you would purposely avoid your responsibility under 2-8-4, just so you can keep the coach from saying some smart comment? Isn't that effectively having the coach control you, and your actions? When does White 11 become disqualified? Under your scenario, never, per 4-14-2.

Billy did exactly what he was supposed to do, which was inform the coach that player had 5 fouls. The coach continued to act inappropriately, and was penalized accordingly. Like rocky said, we can argue style points all day, but what Billy did was correct. And what the coach did had nothing to do with being informed #11 had 5 fouls.

[tref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, um, let me get this straight, you would purposely avoid your responsibility under 2-8-4, just so you can keep the coach from saying some smart comment? Isn't that effectively having the coach control you, and your actions? When does White 11 become disqualified? Under your scenario, never, per 4-14-2.

Billy did exactly what he was supposed to do, which was inform the coach that player had 5 fouls. The coach continued to act inappropriately, and was penalized accordingly. Like rocky said, we can argue style points all day, but what Billy did was correct. And what the coach did had nothing to do with being informed #11 had 5 fouls.

(In my best Archie Bunker voice) Jeeeezzzz!!

Umm NO, sorry, never said THAT!
What I did say, in plain english mind you, was,
ie: "Is the sub for 11, he has 5."
Does that not fulfill our responsiblities??

I never said Billy did anything incorrect, excuse me if I'm wrong, but I thought we were in the business of improving day to day by thinking things through AFTER the game. Like, how could I have handled this better??