I'm gonna disagree here. In the sitch RookieDude diffused the situation with a little subtle humor to the point where the coach went from "eyes bugging out" and yelling to talking in a soft voice and smiling. I'd say the the Rook handled this deftly and with quite a bit skill. Can it be a potential minefield to use this type of humor in the situation? Absolutely! But Rook (at least in this sitch) had the interpersonal skills to pull it off and calm the waters with this particular coach. Totally unprofessional? NO WAY! He diffused a coach who could have gotten out of hand, without having to whack him, without a scene & the game moved on. I'd say this was handled completely professionally.

Matter of fact, I would prefer to see this backcourt violation stricken from the rules. It's *always* seen as a bad call by everyone, except the officials who actually know the rule. So change the rule.

While I don't normally try what RookieDude did in the first post (I just don't know enough coaches around here *that* well, even after 9 years in the state), I do laugh when I read the posts. I wouldn't hesitate to use such a comment in rec/AAU ball, if I worked rec/AAU ball.

There should be. 4 shots plus the next 2 possessions ... That'll learn 'em :p

Good feedback...good STFU's...good place to vent.

Thanks.

I gonna disagree, respectfully. Let's quit screwing with the rules. Last to touch, first to touch response was all that was needed explained to the coach. I see this situation in the OP similar to an out of bounds play, although covered by a different set of rules.

Go a head and try this with every coach and see where that gets you. He got lucky...this time!

It's definitely a choose your battle situation. Not every official can use it, and it can't be used on every coach. You have to have developed serious credibility with the coach for it to work. You have to have developed serious credibility with your assigners to even try it; in case it backfires.

Screwing with the rules? 24 years in this racket, I can say that rule changes are minor and rare. But this rule is always seen as a "gotcha" rule by everyone.

I'd simply change it to this: If B causes end of player control in the frontcourt, it is not a violation for A to recover the ball in the backcourt.

Or something like that.

Easy.

A slight tweak of the TC rule would accomplish it.

You're right...Won't work all the time
 

I agreed this approach can be a minefield. Like Snaqs said, you definitely have to pick your spots with this and knowing the audience is a must. Gotta be careful with this approach, but it can really work to diffuse a situation. Did Rook get lucky this time? Maybe, or maybe he already had a relationship with this coach that allowed him to use a little humor to calm things down. We just don't know.

Yep...

'

His mechanics look good to me, but why is he wearing a collared shirt?

I admit, I got a chuckle out of this.

I agree that it worked out for RD this time. Or so it seems. So far. The next time he works for this coach, it could still come back to bite him. If the coach fills out any kind of official eval or game report that mentions the exchange, if that is seen by "somebody", it could still come back to haunt him.

It was the coach that brought the conversation back onto a professional level by saying, "Hey, we need to get on the same page...we've been doing this a long time." Is there a way that RD could have gotten there, sans the wise a$$ remarks?

No amount of credibility can protect an official if unprofessional and antagonistic comments like this to a coach backfires, and someone who thinks they have that much is completely delusional. It may not be direct in all cases, but it never goes well for an official or his career. I'm embarrassed for the OP and anyone who really found it acceptable and amusing. Stories and jokes are one thing. Actually doing it is another.

I gotta say you have to eat this one. A1 had every right to be upset. B1 fouled A1, yet you called the foul on A1 instead of B1. :D