Easiest Toss I've Ever Had

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

I really don't like it when a partner goes over and tells the coach they have lost the use of the coaches box. I do not have my books with me at the moment and I can't find any reference to it online being the appropriate mechanic.

The coaches know the rule. I would say it is likely the only rule they understand the best.

Even so, in my opinion, you went over to the coach and it only exacerbated the situation. You went to him, he had no place to go to avoid your comment on something he already knows. I think you made the situation worse in that moment.

There is nothing good by going over there. It looks like you are trying to coddle the coach after your partner made a call he disagreed with.

If he needs to be reminded, there is a better way to do it. He probably still needs a moment to collect himself.

I agree and disagree with what you are saying. I think a non-calling official should go over to inform the coach that he/she has lost the coaching box and must remain seated. Some coaches mysteriously forget this rule when it applies to them. The part I don't like from the OP is everything after that. From a distance, it does give the appearance that the official is giving the coach a shoulder to cry on. In this particular situation, getting away from the coach after telling him about the coaches box would have either ended the conversation or made the second T a no-brainer.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I agree and disagree with what you are saying. I think a non-calling official should go over to inform the coach that he/she has lost the coaching box and must remain seated. Some coaches mysteriously forget this rule when it applies to them. The part I don't like from the OP is everything after that. From a distance, it does give the appearance that the official is giving the coach a shoulder to cry on. In this particular situation, getting away from the coach after telling him about the coaches box would have either ended the conversation or made the second T a no-brainer.

I HATE it when partners talk to coaches about anything other than "You've lost the box" when I give a technical. I don't even like it when partners stand there and talk to them after I stick one of their players. It definitely gives the appearance that he's trying to play "good cop" to your bad cop and it makes the calling official look bad.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I HATE it when partners talk to coaches about anything other than "You've lost the box" when I give a technical. I don't even like it when partners stand there and talk to them after I stick one of their players. It definitely gives the appearance that he's trying to play "good cop" to your bad cop and it makes the calling official look bad.

I work with a small set of partners and I'm fine with one of them doing whatever he deems necessary. I know, however, they wouldn't throw me under the bus.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Rich

I work with a small set of partners and I'm fine with one of them doing whatever he deems necessary. I know, however, they wouldn't throw me under the bus.

What if the opposing coach had a loud opinion about it and how it looks?

Can you tell me what good can come from this? Seriously, if a coach does something to earn a T, that coach has to live with his/her actions. Letting the coach know that he/she must remain seated is a courtesy and that is all I can think of that needs to be said at the time.

A loosely related question: if a coach was unhappy with a call or non-call, would you let them talk to you about it if they call a timeout?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by tomegun

What if the opposing coach had a loud opinion about it and how it looks?

Can you tell me what good can come from this? Seriously, if a coach does something to earn a T, that coach has to live with his/her actions. Letting the coach know that he/she must remain seated is a courtesy and that is all I can think of that needs to be said at the time.

A loosely related question: if a coach was unhappy with a call or non-call, would you let them talk to you about it if they call a timeout?

I'm not saying I'd hang around and have a conversation. I'm just saying if my partner spent a few seconds, I wouldn't be bothered by it.

I had experience in this area this weekend -- my partner (same official) whacked an assistant coach both Friday night and Saturday afternoon. Both times I administered the free throws while he went division line opposite (2-person). Before he administered the throw-in, I simply said, "You need to have a seat." They wanted to engage me, but I was too busy showing them my back.

To answer your question: I'd probably answer a question if they had one on the timeout (and only if it was a quick one that wasn't aggressively asked), but if they started arguing or making statements, I'd probably be walking away.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'm not saying I'd hang around and have a conversation. I'm just saying if my partner spent a few seconds, I wouldn't be bothered by it.

I had experience in this area this weekend -- my partner (same official) whacked an assistant coach both Friday night and Saturday afternoon. Both times I administered the free throws while he went division line opposite (2-person). Before he administered the throw-in, I simply said, "You need to have a seat." They wanted to engage me, but I was too busy showing them my back.

To answer your question: I'd probably answer a question if they had one on the timeout (and only if it was a quick one that wasn't aggressively asked), but if they started arguing or making statements, I'd probably be walking away.

Second post in a row I'm confused about...we are in agreement then? What you did is exactly what I would have done except I would have probably said, "Coach, because of the technical foul, you must remain seated for the remainder of the game." For me - former military - saying what you said will come off too hard for some people.

In the situation with my question, I would walk the coach back to the huddle and 1) if everything with the coach was OK I would tell him/her we can talk about it later or 2) if everything wasn't OK, I would tell the coach that they aren't going to use a timeout to talk to us.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Second post in a row I'm confused about...we are in agreement then? What you did is exactly what I would have done except I would have probably said, "Coach, because of the technical foul, you must remain seated for the remainder of the game." For me - former military - saying what you said will come off too hard for some people.

In the situation with my question, I would walk the coach back to the huddle and 1) if everything with the coach was OK I would tell him/her we can talk about it later or 2) if everything wasn't OK, I would tell the coach that they aren't going to use a timeout to talk to us.

Nothing to be confused about -- you and I would probably do similar things. I get the sense we'd do a lot of things on the court similarly. However, I'm OK if a partner wants to do things a bit differently, even if it's not something I would do personally. I know the guys I work with and know they wouldn't throw me under the bus. Some of them have different styles than me, though.

Regarding the question -- I always try to "walk" coaches back -- whether it's the dugout in baseball, the sideline in football, or the huddle in basketball. It's good practice.

This conversation reminded me that my partner whacked two assistants in consecutive nights, though. I'll have to ask him who pissed in his Cheerios.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by tomegun

Coach, because of the technical foul, you must remain seated for the remainder of the game."

Not true. Rather it's, "Coach, because of the technical foul, you cannot stand and use the coaching box for the remainder of the game."

As the game progresses, there will be times that the coach will be allowed to stand: request a timeout; ask about a mistake, or a correctable error; stand during timeouts, and intermissions; acknowledge players during substitutions; and spontaneously react to a great play by one of his players. (There's probably more, but I'm at work and I don't have my books.)

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by tomegun

A loosely related question: if a coach was unhappy with a call or non-call, would you let them talk to you about it if they call a timeout?

This is a great question.

Are you going to deny the request for TO? My guess is no.

It is always up to us if we want to talk in these situations. If they want to call the TO that is up to them.

I have handled it a few ways.
1) Go opposite and not engage the coach. Just because they want to talk about it, doesn't mean I want to.
2) I have granted a TO after my call and told a coach "you've got 10 seconds to say what you want about that call, no profanity, no yelling." I have not had to do this very often but it helps move the situation along. The coach gets makes their point, I listen, then I move away.
3) If they want to talk to partner(s), it is up to them. But I am not hanging around for the coach to discuss a call by my partner.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by tomegun

....
A loosely related question: if a coach was unhappy with a call or non-call, would you let them talk to you about it if they call a timeout?

Depends on which supervisor I'm working for that night.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Rich

I work with a small set of partners and I'm fine with one of them doing whatever he deems necessary. I know, however, they wouldn't throw me under the bus.

I can see how that would work out okay. I'm confident that most of the guys I work with would never throw me under the bus either, but there are a few every now and then I'm not sure about. If I'm the non-calling official, I don't stand near the coach because I don't want to be perceived as coddling him.

[Loudwhistle2]

Originally Posted by Rich

I work with a small set of partners and I'm fine with one of them doing whatever he deems necessary. I know, however, they wouldn't throw me under the bus.

I agree with Rich. If It would have been my game I wouldn't have said anything to the coach until after the free throws to see if he was going to sit and comply. If he is still standing then I quickly go by him and say, "coaching box is gone!" That usually gets the hint across and you get he heck out of there.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I agree and disagree with what you are saying. I think a non-calling official should go over to inform the coach that he/she has lost the coaching box and must remain seated. Some coaches mysteriously forget this rule when it applies to them. The part I don't like from the OP is everything after that. From a distance, it does give the appearance that the official is giving the coach a shoulder to cry on. In this particular situation, getting away from the coach after telling him about the coaches box would have either ended the conversation or made the second T a no-brainer.

Calling his partner an idiot is worthy, don't get me wrong.

So what if he mysteriously forgets, it could be that the coach thinks he is responding to good play by his team after the moment of the T has passed. When the officials are moving by, just calmly remind the coach. Most of the time they will comply because they have had a chance to move on. This was not the case. The non-calling official is exerting control at a time when it is not necessary.

Fisaco did not have to inform the coach of the rule - which I have no doubt is known. Even so, all he had to do was deliver the message and move on. The coach made another comment and asked a question - it was a question designed to divide the crew or in the hopes that the coach could find someone to trust. Instead Fiasco inadvertently kept the fire burning. Fiasco thought he would have the last word and the coach would simply comply, when it might have been better to let the coach have the last word.

He would never have been in position to hear the coach say his partner was a idiot if he stayed away. If you still feel like it is something that needs to be said, wait until after the 2nd FT, or when the ball is about to be inbounded. The coach likely will be ready to move on by then.

I agree with the earlier post - "What a fiasco"

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by icallfouls

Calling his partner an idiot is worthy, don't get me wrong.

Fisaco did not have to inform the coach of the rule - which I have no doubt is known. Even so, all he had to do was deliver the message and move on. The coach made another comment and asked a question - that did not need to be answered. Fiasco put all the attention on himself and the coach. Fiasco had to have the last word, when it might have been better to let the coach have the last word.

He would never have been in position to hear the coach say his partner was a idiot.

I agree with the earlier post - "What a fiasco"

So you are saying you and I agree then?

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by tomegun

So you are saying you and I agree then?

we are in agreement