If the HC is not saying anything, I am certainly not saying anything to the AC. I get that some do not like that approach, but I have enough to do and to answer to with a coach, I am not listening to 5 people and getting 5 different conversations. I am having one conversation and if the HC has something to say, then he should do that and not the AC. Also timeouts are different in anyway. A conversation during a timeout better be non-confrontational and better be so they can get information. The minute that turns to what I must do or explain then the conversation is over, whether that is AC or the HC. And the reality is the experienced coaches know this anyway and this is not a problem. It is usually the ignorant coaches that either do not have the experience that this is a problem.

Peace

Just because a T won't make the game better doesn't mean it shouldn't be called, IMO. With 14 seconds left, the only thing that's going to actually make the game better is to let 14 seconds run off the clock; but I think this T needs to be called. Even if it only makes the next game better.

If the behavior is borderline, I can see using the "will it make the game better" criteria. But an AC making the announcement in the OP? That's not borderline for an AC. For an HC? Maybe borderline, but not an AC.

If you explain one type of decision, why not the other?

If asked appropriately, respectfully and at the right time, I have no problem answering a question from an assistant.

I'll give information, but I am not explaining anything to an AC. There is a difference between 'answering a question' and 'explaining a call/no-call'. And I made that clear in my original post.

Classic!!!! Well-played.

Big difference.

Peace

all great information everyone, thanks!

back at it for two games there this afternoon. Lesson learned :D

Bingo. Let it run. If you T the assistant at that point of that game (game is over, coach is taking it like a man and just wants to be done), there's a good chance you'll end up T'ing the head coach, too. Just doesn't seem worth it to me.

Had the AC been put in his place when the questioning started during the timeout, perhaps he would've known that he wasn't dealing with summer refs & the EOG sitch may not have occurred. Once they think you're inexperienced they really try you! Had he been dealt with earlier a T with 1 second left is justified. Please tell me that in the OP he didn't walk onto the floor seeking an answer.

Sitting behind a bench last season, I hear an AC telling the staff, "leave those two alone, but we got that one." Speaking about one of the officials who answered every question from anybody on the bench. Boy did they work him all nite!!
That particular official is of the mindset... I'll answer questions from those who ask in a respectful manner.
Coaching staffs know the communication guidelines & when we stray, it can make for a long nite.

My point is, no T is going to make the game better with 14 seconds left. Do you swallow the whistle on all of them for that reason? Of course not. If it's a borderline call, I can see using that as a factor, but if A1 screams, "Aren't you going to call a foul?" with 14 seconds left, aren't you going to call that? If an HC says it, no big deal. If an AC yells it for the gym to hear; I just don't think I can ignore that.

Must make a difference in how you answer, cause I've never had that problem. Aside from that, I don't answer enough questions that they'll get that impression. One, maybe two. I've never had to go beyond that, but there would quickly come a time when I'd approach the HC and inform him that he will need to be the one communicating with us.

I just don't see it as a big deal during timeouts. Liveball? No way I'm acknowledging an AC. Too many headaches. With a max of 12 TOs (including quarter breaks), I've never had to answer more than 1 or 2 AC questions during a given game.

Let me amend my earlier answer -- if he asks "what happened there so I can teachmy players?" that's one thing. If he says "wtf was that? you've got to have something there" then it's another.

Each fits the OP "asks for an explanation."

sorry...to specificially quote.....2nd half, t/o red...i'm tableside calling and reporting T.O. in front of red bench. I report, then hear from AC (actually politely), "can you explain to me why that wasn't a backcourt violation?".

i explained, he disagreed, 'ok coach' (by me) and I walked away. didn't hear anymore til around :14 to go and counting.....

I'm not answering jeapordy questions. All he's doing is giving you advice in the form of a question, that doesn't qualify, IMO.

+1

Sometimes, we send an unitended message when we choose to ignore. The message inferred could be that one can get away with statements like the AC made.

I agree with Snaqs. If you T him up today, there will be less liklihood of someone else having to deal with it in the future.