Easiest Toss I've Ever Had

[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.

[icallfouls]

Originally Posted by tomegun

So you are saying you and I agree then?

we are in agreement

[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.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.)

I will make that change. Thanks.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I will make that change. Thanks.

Or even better, charge him with the second technical foul and make him sit on the cold bus. Make sure that he wears his seat belt. Yeah. That's a better option.

[fiasco]

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.

You know what happens when you assume...

[JRutledge]

I make it very clear to coaches that I am not the sounding board for their BS. I might go to the coach and say they have to sit and then walk away. Not my job to tell them the rule. They know the rule. Now if the coach yelled "Your partner is an idiot" then that is different. I just learned from previous situations that I do not want to be around to explain much to a coach. Coaches feel like we own them something and we do not.

Peace

[VaTerp]

Last week my partner had what IMO was a quick T. He went opposite, other partner administered, I went table side.

Coach still standing says, "Can I ask you a question?" I back over toward him. Here's the exchange:

Coach, "You and I been doing this a long time (odd statement, I was the R but probably 20 years younger than both my partners), isnt he suppose to at least give me a warning."

"No, we don't have to."

"All I said was that was a travel. That's ridiculous. I want his name."

"It's in the book."

"I want his full name."

"You can email XX ,(our assigner)"

"I've known XX for twenty years"

"Well you should have his email then coach, and I need to tell you that you've lost the coaching box for the rest of the game." Walk away.

Coach says, "I know that as he goes to take a seat."

The whole exchange did not take that long but it took longer than I would have liked. And after giving it some thought it probably did have the appearance of me being a shoulder to cry on and somewhat undermining my partner.

I've worked with some guys who say once we stick a coach he wants everyone in the crew to stay away from him for a while. He's been stuck, he knows the rule. He'll get to his seat soon enough. If not, give him a quick reminder. If they want to talk about something later maybe they'll get a chance later, maybe they won't.

I mentioned that IMO it was a quick T b/c I do think that played a factor in me being more willing to go over and engage him for a second. Had it been a more obvious T I would have likely stayed away.

But moving forward I think I like the guideline of everyone staying away for a while. IMO it looks better as a crew and much more harm than good can come from engaging the coach so quickly after a T as evidenced by the OP.

[fiasco]

LOL...you can't win for losing on this board.

I love all the knee-jerk assumption judgment that goes on in a lot of threads, like has gone on in this one, with certain people looking for some nit to pick to make the thread controversial or interesting.

Had I posted in my scenario that I didn't go over and give the coach the seatbelt, then he came flying off the bench and screamed at my partner and we had to toss him, then it would have been my fault for not properly communicating with the coach that he had lost his coaching box privileges. You can't win, no matter what you do!

Fact is, coaches in my area really don't know these kinds of rules, as some have assumed. I mean, in the same quarter, we had coaches for both sides complaining that why were we administering the common foul shots first and not administering the FTs for the Ts first. "You're thinking of college." I said to both of them. "In HS, fouls are administered in the order in which they occurred." More blank stares. That's just the way it is in my area. Coaches can't be bothered to learn the nuances of the rules like this. Which is fine. But then it falls upon the officials to do a bit of educating during the game. (Especially when the coach has already been T'd up and is standing at the edge of his coaching box not moving)

So do you think these bozos know anything about a coaching box? No. I had to inform the assistant coach of the offending team (after the HC had been tossed) that he didn't have a coaching box either and he had zero clue what I was talking about. So you're telling me that I should let him just do whatever he wants, let him stand and use the coaching box, then go over to him later and tell him to have a seat once he's already used the coaching box? No thanks, that approach only leads to more agitation.

My approach is to politely and professionally educate when the situation warrants. If the coach wants to flip out on me, that's on him and I'm not losing any sleep over it. Like I said, easy T. I'd rather T up a coach while I'm telling him he's got a seatbelt than have to T him later for using the coaching box that he's lost because I didn't communicate properly with him.

I guess I just don't believe in pussy footing around coaches just to avoid technical fouls. Does that mean I intentionally insert myself in situations in order to call technical fouls? No, I'm over that "bravado" phase and have moved to a point in my career where a "T" truly is like any other foul to me.

And I know what it means to have my partner's back, which is what I did. I communicated with him after his T that I was going over to give coach the seatbelt, so my partner didn't think I was going to give him a shoulder to cry on (in fact, I pregame this with all my partners). And I didn't stand there nodding my head to the coach and having the kind of body language that shows sympathy. This isn't my first rodeo.

The only question I had was whether or not, in that situation, it warrants a 3rd T for a coach who wants to continue jawing at you. I appreciate those of you who responded to my actual question.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by fiasco

LOL...you can't win for losing on this board.

I love all the knee-jerk assumption judgment that goes on in a lot of threads, like has gone on in this one, with certain people looking for some nit to pick to make the thread controversial or interesting.

Had I posted in my scenario that I didn't go over and give the coach the seatbelt, then he came flying off the bench and screamed at my partner and we had to toss him, then it would have been my fault for not properly communicating with the coach that he had lost his coaching box privileges. You can't win, no matter what you do!

Fact is, coaches in my area really don't know these kinds of rules, as some have assumed. I mean, in the same quarter, we had coaches for both sides complaining that why were we administering the common foul shots first and not administering the FTs for the Ts first. "You're thinking of college." I said to both of them. "In HS, fouls are administered in the order in which they occurred." More blank stares. That's just the way it is in my area. Coaches can't be bothered to learn the nuances of the rules like this. Which is fine. But then it falls upon the officials to do a bit of educating during the game. (Especially when the coach has already been T'd up and is standing at the edge of his coaching box not moving)

So do you think these bozos know anything about a coaching box? No. I had to inform the assistant coach of the offending team (after the HC had been tossed) that he didn't have a coaching box either and he had zero clue what I was talking about. So you're telling me that I should let him just do whatever he wants, let him stand and use the coaching box, then go over to him later and tell him to have a seat once he's already used the coaching box? No thanks, that approach only leads to more agitation.

My approach is to politely and professionally educate when the situation warrants. If the coach wants to flip out on me, that's on him and I'm not losing any sleep over it. Like I said, easy T. I'd rather T up a coach while I'm telling him he's got a seatbelt than have to T him later for using the coaching box that he's lost because I didn't communicate properly with him.

I guess I just don't believe in pussy footing around coaches just to avoid technical fouls. Does that mean I intentionally insert myself in situations in order to call technical fouls? No, I'm over that "bravado" phase and have moved to a point in my career where a "T" truly is like any other foul to me.

And I know what it means to have my partner's back, which is what I did. I communicated with him after his T that I was going over to give coach the seatbelt, so my partner didn't think I was going to give him a shoulder to cry on (in fact, I pregame this with all my partners). And I didn't stand there nodding my head to the coach and having the kind of body language that shows sympathy. This isn't my first rodeo.

The only question I had was whether or not, in that situation, it warrants a 3rd T for a coach who wants to continue jawing at you. I appreciate those of you who responded to my actual question.

To be clear, I wasn't implying in any of my posts that you were playing good cop and giving the coach your shoulder to cry on. I was kind of lamenting that happening with guys I've worked with, and your thread was an easy one to relate to. I think you guys handled it well.

And for the record, you are correct about the knee jerk reactions on this board and the nit-picking just to make things interesting.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by fiasco

The only question I had was whether or not, in that situation, it warrants a 3rd T for a coach who wants to continue jawing at you. I appreciate those of you who responded to my actual question.

Rule #1 of Internet boards -- the OP doesn't control the direction threads go.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Rich

Rule #1 of Internet boards -- the OP doesn't control the direction threads go.

Control? Certainly not.

But that doesn't mean the OP can't comment on the direction the thread goes.