Why we avoid conflicts of interest

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It's not a universal practice all over the country. I think the meaning of it is crystal clear, but it takes quite a bit for me to get to the point where I draw a visible line on the court and essentially (in some coaches' minds) dare them to step over it.

And that's probably why I don't like it. I don't like when coaches show me up and there's a part of me that thinks that me putting my hand up for the coach (and everyone else) to see puts a coach into a corner, and there's nothing more dangerous than a cornered rat.

I view it as a tool to let the coach know we have had enough and they will choose to go down one of two roads. Road one: try to correct their behavior and move on. Road two: leads straight to Whackland! It is their choice.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

I view it as a tool to let the coach know we have had enough and they will choose to go down one of two roads. Road one: try to correct their behavior and move on. Road two: leads straight to Whackland! It is their choice.

I tend to agree here. I don't have nearly as much experience as a lot of you, but this logic makes sense to me. It gives a coach a choice, and they can't say we didn't warn them. I've used it with success before, but I've also T'd after using it.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

I tend to agree here. I don't have nearly as much experience as a lot of you, but this logic makes sense to me. It gives a coach a choice, and they can't say we didn't warn them. I've used it with success before, but I've also T'd after using it.

A piece of advice. You considered it success when the T wasn't issued. That implies that you consider it failure when the coach runs through the sign. It's not failure -- it's the coach's choice. Just cause I like to use other tools in the bag before I pull out the stop sign (it's the last possible step before a T, IMO) does not mean it's a failure on the part of the officials if the coach runs through it.

A technical foul is not failure. Those that tell you they haven't called one in 20 years are likely spineless officials who've ignored their responsibilities. Coaches are human beings and one thing that's true is that you don't work 50+ games a season without at least a few coaches crossing the line. Enforce and move on. Do like I do and try to figure out if there was a better way to deal with the situation. My main problem with last night is that I felt I gave way too much rope -- had I warned earlier, maybe the coach would've gotten the message. Maybe not. Still thinking about that one.

[stiffler3492]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

A piece of advice. You considered it success when the T wasn't issued. That implies that you consider it failure when the coach runs through the sign. It's not failure -- it's the coach's choice. Just cause I like to use other tools in the bag before I pull out the stop sign (it's the last possible step before a T, IMO) does not mean it's a failure on the part of the officials if the coach runs through it.

A technical foul is not failure. Those that tell you they haven't called one in 20 years are likely spineless officials who've ignored their responsibilities. Coaches are human beings and one thing that's true is that you don't work 50+ games a season without at least a few coaches crossing the line. Enforce and move on. Do like I do and try to figure out if there was a better way to deal with the situation. My main problem with last night is that I felt I gave way too much rope -- had I warned earlier, maybe the coach would've gotten the message. Maybe not. Still thinking about that one.

Thanks for the advice. That's how I see it. You put it into words better than I did.

[GoodwillRef]

In NCAAW we are instructed to give a STOP SIGN and verbally say that “You have been warned.” If you don't give a verbal it is not considered a warning. We are instructed to "try" to give a warning before a technical is given.

[Adam]

And for the record, I hate the idea of doing it "for the tape," as if your assigner won't trust your word but needs the tape to back you up.

[rwest]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And for the record, I hate the idea of doing it "for the tape," as if your assigner won't trust your word but needs the tape to back you up.

I like the stop sign and we use it my area of Georgia. Maybe that's why I like it because I've been instructed to use it. It does work, but that depends on your definition of "work". If you believe it should prevent a T, that's not what it is there for. The purpose is to let not only the coach, but everyone else, including your partners, that the coach has been warned. Yes, it will show up on the tape and I like that. It's not about your assignor not trusting you. But the coach may very well say..."I was never warned". Well, you now have proof to show him that he was. Not to prove it to your assignor but to refute what the coach just said. Someone else said that he warns the coach without the stop sign verbally so just he and the coach knows about it. I think that's a bad idea. Warn him/her so that everyone knows you did. You're not showing him up. Your just taking care of business. Sure you can warn the coach and then at a dead ball tell your partners you've warned the coach. However, I believe it is much more efficient if you pre-game the stop sign and say that once it has been given by one it has been given by all. The next time the coach is out of line, it's T time.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And for the record, I hate the idea of doing it "for the tape," as if your assigner won't trust your word but needs the tape to back you up.

"The tape" isn't for your assignor to believe you, it's for your assignor to use as evidence that you handled things properly when defending you or your actions to the coach, AD, or conference commissioner.

Coaches also have their version of what transpired in a particular situation and they expect their ADs to trust their word as much as we expect our assignors to trust ours.