More like Mark P...

[Back In The Saddle]

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?

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

Forgive me for assuming some things here but...

Mark Padgett seems to be a fun loving, quick witted, smart a$$ official.

Nevadaref seems to be a "by the book", dry official, with no room for deviation.

Philosophically...somewhere between these two guys is where one might want to be as an official.

Now I realize that knowing the rule book does not make a good official,
but one cannot be a good official without knowing the rule book.

Having said that...as I get older and more experienced, I seem to want to be more of a smart a$$ to the coaches.

Just last night, I had a Coach complain about a "over and back" call that I made.

A1 had the ball in his frontcourt...A1 passed the ball to A2. B1 tipped the ball before it got to A2 and the ball bounced off of A2's knee and into the backcourt. A2 went to recover the ball. Tweet! Backcourt Violation!

Coach yelled, "How can that be...the defender deflected the ball!"
Partner explained the rule to him as we inbounded the ball.

Next time down the court, I get a foul on Coach A's big man. Coach A says... "How can that be a foul? You don't know what a foul is if that is one!"

Instead of whacking him, I simply go over and say, "Why should I listen to you? You didn't even know the backcourt rule."

His eyes bug out and he can't believe he has been talked to like that. He mentions something about being professional and goes on to say, "We are going to have a PROBLEM!"

I look at him, as the ball is being inbounded, and say, "How do you think that is going to work out for you?"

Two more times down the court and he quietly says to me, with a smile..."Hey, we need to get on the same page...we've been doing this a long time."

I said, "Coach, I forgot about it already."

Yeah, I shouldn't probably be saying these smart a$$ remarks...but, darn it...Padgett keeps giving me material here.

I think that most of your comments made to this coach were totally unprofessional. Most coaches in the country at all levels don't know that over and back rule/play that you had in your game. Being a smart a$$ usually has more cons than pros.

[centkyref]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

I think that most of your comments made to this coach were totally unprofessional. Most coaches in the country at all levels don't know that over and back rule/play that you had in your game. Being a smart a$$ usually has more cons than pros.

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.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by centkyref

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.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

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.

[centkyref]

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.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Yep...

[TheOracle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

I think that most of your comments made to this coach were totally unprofessional. Most coaches in the country at all levels don't know that over and back rule/play that you had in your game. Being a smart a$$ usually has more cons than pros.

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.

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Indianaref

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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.