I have had the coaches involved and I can certainly understand why they did what they did. While both coaches are a handful, they generally never do anything to cross the line.

I've borrowed the mantra of other officials in addressing bad behavior by using the Three Ps. Personal, Profane and Persistent.

I'm not going to allow a coach to continually whine, even if each individual comment is not over the line. Too much and they will eventually peg the ABS meter.

I actually like being table-side. Other than one game (which happened to be last Friday), I prefer to have a coach 'talk' to me rather than have him 'yell' across.

As Welpe indicated, the continual banter needs to be addressed.
2nd or 3rd time: "Coach, if you have a question about that play, I'll answer it; but the commentary isn't doing either of us any good."

If he follows that up by asking questions on every play, deal with that, too. If the coach's behavior prevents you from being able to follow proper mechanics, I'd prefer to deal with it rather than changing the mechanics.

That said, we don't do the table side thing here in two-man, even though I would prefer it. I also would prefer to be able to have a quiet word with the coach.

= 10

I'm starting to think it encourages a running dialogue. Sure, the a$$hats will yell across once in a while, but the more reasonable coaches will see the official across and figure it's not worth it -- whereas tableside, they'll get in a quiet shot here and there.

+1 The further away the better once a call has been explained!!

If they never cross the line then why avoid them? If they were coaches that cross the line then that is easily addressed using Rule 10.

One Tactic That Worked Recently
 

Coach, known for riding the refs the entire game, early in the second half, again to me in transition: "C'mon, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah............."
Me, not wanting to be a smartaleck, but getting tired of it: "Coach, your comments have been so frequent, I just want you to know I stopped listening midway last quarter."
Coach: Off my back the rest of the game.

Don't know if it will work the next time, but I would try it again under the same non-T, every-time-down-the-court circumstances.

I find it provides an opportunity to address concerns before they feel the need to devolve into running commentary.

I can also stop the running commentary easily with a comment if I'm there.

1) As MByron correctly stated, Ohio is not an IAABO state. There is one IAABO Board in Ohio and I am a member of it.

2) NFHS Mechanics state that the calling official should stay Table Side in this scenario. But that does not prevent the officials from switching if it is a good idea to keep the calling official away from the coaches of a particular team. Having said that, I think that it was a stupid mechanic adopted by Mary Struckhoff because she thinks that high school basketball is the same as NCAA Division I and WNBA basketball where the Head Coaches are familiar with the officials that officiate their games and can be expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner 99.999% of the time; this cannot be said for the vast majority of Jr. H.S and H.S. Head Coaches. And in our game if I had been made the call from the T, we still would have switched.

3) And there has always been a reason for switching after fouls: The idea of switching is to keep the officials from seeing the teams in the same end of the court, i.e., one official always seeing Team A on offense and Team B on defense and vice versa. Mary Struckhoff is clueless on that point among others in my opinion.

4) MByron is correct when he states that the OhioHSAA 'uses' NFHS Mechanics. But the OhioHSAA cannot really make that claim, because even though the Chairman of the NFHS Basketball Rules Committee is an Assistant Commissioner of the OhioHSAA, the OhioHSAA did not adopt the Team Control Foul signal because it is, according to the OhioHSAA confusing to the players, coaches, scorers, and fans. So it can be said that the OhioHSAA is not a 100% believer in using NFHS Mechanics.

MTD, Sr.

Exactly. Because mechanically speaking there is really no reason to be close enough to a coach and/or facing a coach anyway during free throws for him to be able to make a running commentary, no matter system we are working.

We all know when we've made a call that might need a brief explanation. Report the foul, quickly tell the coach what you need to tell him, and then get to your spot. Whether you're working 2-man, 3-man, going opposite, or staying tableside.

In 2-man, I never get close enough for a coach to talk to me during free throws.

I have to disagree on this point. When the change first came down, I and many others in my association were not happy about it at all. However after two seasons working with this mechanic, I have found that MOST coaches are much more willing to have a reasonable conversation with officials when we are table side than opposite table. There are always a few bad apples out there, but for the most part I feel that the change has been positive. Although maybe that has more to do with us being laid back Californians than anything else :D

And using the PC signal for team control fouls still confuses the coaches. Just Saturday I called a foul in the key on A and gave the PC signal like a good boy and got an earful from the coach on how I could call a foul when the dribbler was on the other side of the court, five feet from my partner. I don't think he ever understood it wasn't on the dribbler.

Eastshire:

Thanks for proving my point. I have stuck with the NFHS Mechnic for a TCF and I really do not care what the people in Columbus think. :D

MTD, Sr.