I'll keep an eye out . . .
 

Its becoming more and more the norm in the games I work in our area that our assignor expects us to respond to coaches who have a question/conern about something we're "missing" with a generic response:

ie. "I'll watch for it coach", "We'll keep an eye on it", etc. etc

I understand this acknowledges the coach and the issue while allowing me to leverage to then in fact keep officiating while looking for it in case it is an issue. In some situations it seems appropriate, if I am in fact listening and willing to look at a concern. Often I hear other officials use it and then there is no follow up, no concerted effort to correct or ID the concern, in fact often they'll come over during a break/ halftime and after the game complaining about the coach whining about something.

Maybe its just me over thinking this or wrestling with my view on integrity of the game but if I tell someone I'll do something I will go ahead and do it not just give a placating response. I will in fact look at the situation the coach is concerned about if it comes up again and make a judgement. At this point maybe not on my own but if the coach brings it up again I feel like I'm obliged to then explain to the coach that I've seen it and this is what I saw. I know that opens the door to conversation/debate/argument we don't want. I'm not sure tellign him I'm watching for something when I know now what he/she's seeing but they aren't going to get that call tonight just seems dishonest? Avoidance?

I guess at what point do you tell the coach that you'll watch for something and at what point do you tell them what you are seeing and why its being called that way?

More often than not I've found they're asking me about a play I'm already watching, such as three seconds. In that case it's, "I'm watching, coach, and that's not what's happening..."

In those other situations where it's something I might not have seen I don't know if it's a matter of ignoring them. Sometimes time goes on and the situation just doesn't happen again or they simply forget about the play and the issue never comes up again.

95% of the time the coaches don't remember what they asked you about if you were to come back to them.

That is why I do not like saying that in the first place.

Peace

Rambling Thoughts to Original Post
 

Based on video review, I'm discovering more and more that most frequently the comments coaches make are not so much grounded in the play that just happened, but in what could best be called "lobbying for future calls." Maybe, just maybe, the coach can gain an advantage in the upcoming minutes if he puts up a fuss on what he cites as an instance to which he'd like to see an outcome more favorable for him the next time it might occur.

Furthermore, there's what I have come to label, "Phantom Complaints." When a coach says, "I just wanna see one illegal screen called on #24 before this game is over," but #24 is a bench-rider who hasn't even been in the game yet, I say, "Hmmmm." I've sensed, and found in review, more of those kinds of fabricated complaints than I formerly thought occurred. Thus, similarly classified as another technique of "lobbying...".

Another thing: only about 1/3 of the time is the coach's comment to "Keep an eye out for..." directed at the official who was involved with or will next be able to respond by some kind of more diligent surveillance of alleged missed infraction. He's usually pleading whatever case he feels he has to a different official than he feels missed the call on the last play anyway. For an official to say, during the course of live ball action, in that situation, "We'll keep an eye on it, coach", to me seems disingenuous since that official can't have possible met with said partners to come to any sort of agreement to focus on alleged overlooked action.

Nothing wrong, in my book, with spreading a little good will by using an innocuous phrase like, "I'll keep an eye on it, coach." Most of the time, after his brief episode of venting, he's dwelling on the next series of plays anyway. And anyway, all he probably really wants to know is that you "care".

Best, in that case, to be careful of the pronoun used. "I'll..." - okay. "We'll..." - maybe not.

If what the coach is describing is actually a violation (i.e. watch #1, he's pushing) generally say "I'll keep watching for it coach" rather than "I'll watch for it".

If it's not actually a violation (i.e. watch the reaching), I'm not going to tell teh coach I'll watch for it. I'd say something like: "If I see a foul I'll call it."

"I hear you, Coach" usually works for me. :cool:

+1

I do this using the unmistakeable head nod. If I happen to be looking the coach's way, I'll look him/her in the eye while doing it. If not, then just an obvious head nod for acknowledgement.

If I have a little more time, and depending on the situation, I'll just repeat what the coach told me. That really let's the coach know I was listening.

This.

You're acknowledging his comment without having to agree, disagree or commit to a further action.

I said this to a coach once and he came back a little bit later and said "You agreed with me, why haven't you been calling those fouls I pointed out??" I had to explain that acknowledgement of his comment is not the same as agreeing with him.

Now I say "I am watching everything coach." This reminds the coach that I have to watch more things than just the particular call he is looking for, and reminds him that I am on top of it.

I'm not having too many more conversation with a coach who says that...LOL

Do you really think if your standard vocabulary includes words such as these and you use them during a game any coach on the planet will know what the heck you're talking about? :eek: