Ejection ...

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

With only 0:45 left, I wouldn't have said anything to the coach. If he continued on, then yes. But if he really thought you and your P sucked, he should have said something earlier. He's just upset that he team was stapled.

I totally disagree with your "with only :45 left" philosophy. If a coach wants a technical foul give him one, and it seems by all accounts he wanted one. You told him enough and gave him the stop sign and he ran right through it. Then he didn't stop after the first technical foul so the second one was warranted. I am not going to let a coach "own" the last minute of a game just because I don't want to do some paperwork or make the game last an extra 5 minutes. You launch him, he sits next game and hopefully this knucklehead gets a clue.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

I totally disagree with your "with only :45 left" philosophy. If a coach wants a technical foul give him one, and it seems by all accounts he wanted one. You told him enough and gave him the stop sign and he ran right through it. Then he didn't stop after the first technical foul so the second one was warranted. I am not going to let a coach "own" the last minute of a game just because I don't want to do some paperwork or make the game last an extra 5 minutes. You launch him, he sits next game and hopefully this knucklehead gets a clue.

Nowhere in the OP was it mentioned that the HC was belligerent, yelling, screaming, persistent, personal, profane, etc.

A coach who wants a T would not wait until 0:45 left in a 30-point blowout.

I don't see at how this HC wanted a T. He wanted a foul on Red. That's it. If I said anything, I would have said "Understood coach." Trust me, that would have satisfied him. Then nothing more comes of the situation.

I think that using the stop sign, you created more paperwork for yourself. If you think that a coach "owned" the last minute of a 30-point blowout because he finally spoke up and said that Red committed a foul first, then you need thicker skin.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Nowhere in the OP was it mentioned that the HC was belligerent, yelling, screaming, persistent, personal, profane, etc.

A coach who wants a T would not wait until 0:45 left in a 30-point blowout.

I don't see at how this HC wanted a T. He wanted a foul on Red. That's it. If I said anything, I would have said "Understood coach." Trust me, that would have satisfied him. Then nothing more comes of the situation.

I think that using the stop sign, you created more paperwork for yourself. If you think that a coach "owned" the last minute of a 30-point blowout because he finally spoke up and said that Red committed a foul first, then you need thicker skin.

+1

IMO, the only way the stop sign works is if the coaches are well versed in its use. What you did was use it on a Dad who's probably seen his son use it a few times; how well do you think he took it?

It's not a universal stop sign, it's a universal "whatever" sign that happens to be used in some areas as a warning in a basketball game. Guess which one Dad sees when you use it?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Nowhere in the OP was it mentioned that the HC was belligerent, yelling, screaming, persistent, personal, profane, etc.

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.

[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 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?

[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.

[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...