How tight is the seat belt?

[Terrapins Fan]

I called a "T" on an assistant coach the other night, well earned and it worked wonders for the game.

Head coach was not happy and lost his coaching box which he used a lot. I explained that he had lost the box because of the "T" on the assistant.

He sat down. Game went well, but from time to time, he would rise quickly and coach for a second or 2 and sit back down.

I saw him do this about 2 or 3 times, while I had time to glance over. I didn't say anything and I didn't do anything. I was across the floor.

Would anyone else call a "T" for that action? Just wondering.

The "T" was for the assistant yell at me after a good no call,, the ball was clearly block by the defend without any contact, both the HC and the AC, complained as I passed the bench. I had no problem with the HC complaining, but I had enough from the assistant. This was in the 3rd Q. Partners agreed she was getting on their nerves also.

I did not warn her. This is something I need to work on. He had complained earlier and I listened long enough and gave him the stop sign. His unranked team won on the road against the #3 team in our area.

[MD Longhorn]

First time I saw it, assuming it was literally 2 seconds, I would have made sure he GOT it. And T the next one.

Regarding the initial T - I don't think anyone here can tell you if it was justified or whether you should have warned her. Most people will take little to nothing from an assistant, at least in the way of complaints. I don't have issue with the T without warning here.

[JRutledge]

I would have warned them so that if you really had a situation to address, they knew what road they were going down. Then again you did say the T was on the assistant so a T is not going to do anything but get them more upset. I would warn long before I gave a T for that action.

Peace

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Terrapins Fan

He sat down. Game went well, but from time to time, he would rise quickly and coach for a second or 2 and sit back down.

I saw him do this about 2 or 3 times, while I had time to glance over. I didn't say anything and I didn't do anything. I was across the floor.

Would anyone else call a "T" for that action? Just wondering.

If the Coach is rising to coach his/her players and quickly sitting right back down I'm not really concerned with it. Especially after an indirect. If it persists too much for your liking I would definitely remind/warn before going straight to a T here.

I had no problem with the HC complaining, but I had enough from the assistant. This was in the 3rd Q. Partners agreed she was getting on their nerves also.

I did not warn her. This is something I need to work on.

One thing I have very little tolerance for is chatter from the bench. After I hear it more than once I will let the HC know, "Coach we will listen to you within reason but I'm not going to listen to your bench." Most coaches get this and TCB very quickly.

I almost never directly address asst coaches unless it's to relay info coming out of a TO or deadball or something. Asst coaches don't get warnings IMO. Deal directly with the HC. It's their job to control their bench.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

One thing I have very little tolerance for is chatter from the bench.

You have rabbit ears.

Peace

[Smitty]

In my association, we were specifically told this season to give a little more respect to assistant coaches. The leadership of our association had a sit down with a bunch of coaches last off season and got their top list of gripes about officials and the top gripe was how we treat assistant coaches. Not that we should take any crap from them but we should afford them some respect until they prove they don't deserve it. We allow them to ask questions at timeouts as long as it's done in a respectful manner. Part of the reasoning is that they will be tomorrow's head coaches. I'm fine with it - it's caused me to rethink my philosophy on assistant coaches as I was always told they have no rights in the past. I kind of like it because I do think we tend to treat them like turds right off the bat and that may be unfair (some of the time).

As far as the OP, since the T was on the assistant, and as long as the coach was coaching during those 2 second standups, I would probably ignore it. Why stir the pot?

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You have rabbit ears.

Peace

Lol.

When it comes to bench personnel I guess I do. I think my first T last season was during a tip off tourny when an injured player on the bench said, "these guys are terrible" after a call.

The president of my association was working the next game and sitting not too far behind the bench. In the locker room he said, "good T. Their bench had made a couple of other comments then that little $#%! chimes in. I'm glad you TCB."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Smitty

In my association, we were specifically told this season to give a little more respect to assistant coaches. The leadership of our association had a sit down with a bunch of coaches last off season and got their top list of gripes about officials and the top gripe was how we treat assistant coaches. Not that we should take any crap from them but we should afford them some respect until they prove they don't deserve it. We allow them to ask questions at timeouts as long as it's done in a respectful manner. Part of the reasoning is that they will be tomorrow's head coaches. I'm fine with it - it's caused me to rethink my philosophy on assistant coaches as I was always told they have no rights in the past. I kind of like it because I do think we tend to treat them like turds right off the bat and that may be unfair (some of the time).

As far as the OP, since the T was on the assistant, and as long as the coach was coaching during those 2 second standups, I would probably ignore it. Why stir the pot?

My main problem with assistant coaches are that they talk when we are already talking to their HC.

And I who really gives a darn they they will be the HC. If they want HC privileges, then get hired then I will treat you with that level of respect. And they need to know that it is in their best interest if for no other reason but to have good communication with the officials is to have one person doing the talking.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Smitty

In my association, we were specifically told this season to give a little more respect to assistant coaches. The leadership of our association had a sit down with a bunch of coaches last off season and got their top list of gripes about officials and the top gripe was how we treat assistant coaches. Not that we should take any crap from them but we should afford them some respect until they prove they don't deserve it. We allow them to ask questions at timeouts as long as it's done in a respectful manner. Part of the reasoning is that they will be tomorrow's head coaches. I'm fine with it - it's caused me to rethink my philosophy on assistant coaches as I was always told they have no rights in the past. I kind of like it because I do think we tend to treat them like turds right off the bat and that may be unfair (some of the time).

I don't think most of us "treat them like turds", and most of us will answer a question if it's done in a respectful manner. But NO crap from them. Zero. They do not have that right. If you don't clamp down on that, you get a situation which used to be more common - an assistant who seemed to be the designated complainer - so that when the T finally came it was not on the HC.

As far as the OP, since the T was on the assistant, and as long as the coach was coaching during those 2 second standups, I would probably ignore it. Why stir the pot?

I agree about not stirring the pot, but the rule is there for a reason. What happens when you ignore it 5 times, then the OTHER team gets a seatbelt and he stands up, but says something directly to you (instead of coaching). You T that up, and the legitimate question comes --- why did you T me the first time and never T'd the other guy who stood up 5 times? (He doesn't know what was said on the other end).

You don't have to "stir the pot", you can simply remind him that the seatbelt does not include standing up to coach every few minutes. MOST of the time, that will be enough.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jrutledge

my main problem with assistant coaches are that they talk when we are already talking to their hc.

And i who really gives a darn they they will be the hc. If they want hc privileges, then get hired then i will treat you with that level of respect. And they need to know that it is in their best interest if for no other reason but to have good communication with the officials is to have one person doing the talking.

Peace

+1

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Smitty

In my association, we were specifically told this season to give a little more respect to assistant coaches. The leadership of our association had a sit down with a bunch of coaches last off season and got their top list of gripes about officials and the top gripe was how we treat assistant coaches. Not that we should take any crap from them but we should afford them some respect until they prove they don't deserve it. We allow them to ask questions at timeouts as long as it's done in a respectful manner. Part of the reasoning is that they will be tomorrow's head coaches. I'm fine with it - it's caused me to rethink my philosophy on assistant coaches as I was always told they have no rights in the past. I kind of like it because I do think we tend to treat them like turds right off the bat and that may be unfair (some of the time).

As far as the OP, since the T was on the assistant, and as long as the coach was coaching during those 2 second standups, I would probably ignore it. Why stir the pot?

What does this mean exactly?

I will answer questions from asst's during timeouts and am cordial/professional to them. Hell, I use to be an asst coach.

But I am not going to listen to any chirping or sideline officiating from the bench. And I get the sense that this is the overwhelming feeling of my association as well.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by jrutledge

my main problem with assistant coaches are that they talk when we are already talking to their hc.

And i who really gives a darn they they will be the hc. If they want hc privileges, then get hired then i will treat you with that level of respect. And they need to know that it is in their best interest if for no other reason but to have good communication with the officials is to have one person doing the talking.

Peace

+2

[MD Longhorn]

"we should afford them some respect until they prove they don't deserve it."

As an aside, I once, long ago, had a mentor say something similar, but significantly different. Something like, "I respect assistant coaches tremendously, until they prove they exist."

Yeah - that's beyond my line... but it was funny.

[jeschmit]

Seeing this OP made me think of what a coach asked me last week. He got T'd up at halftime, so he was seat-belted for the second half. During a timeout he asked me if he could stand for spontaneous reaction to made baskets or good plays (like bench personal are allowed to do). I told him the only time he could stand after he'd been seat-belted was to get our attention for a timeout.

Can he stand in those situations of spontaneous reaction to plays by his team? I honestly don't know...

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

What does this mean exactly?

I will answer questions from asst's during timeouts and am cordial/professional to them. Hell, I use to be an asst coach.

But I am not going to listen to any chirping or sideline officiating from the bench. And I get the sense that this is the overwhelming feeling of my association as well.

I should have been more clear. What you said is pretty much how we were told to treat them. It is not a "complain to the refs free" card, rather we don't automatically treat them like they're insignificant. I think the mindframe a lot of people are told is that assistant coaches have no rights whatsoever and people take that to an extreme - meaning they won't even entertain a legitimate question during a timeout. Hence that being the main gripe from head coaches.

As far as them being future head coaches, I did mention in the past how much pull head coaches have here in Texas. They can determine (as a district) which officials association will officiate their games. So that changes the perspective of the leadership of our associations - coaches have more power than they probably should here and it is part of the business of the association to give them a good product. How that is interpreted is subjective, but it is what it is.