There are cases that we can go straight to a technical foul...but if a warning can be given ahead of a technical that would be ideal. This is actually the way it is done and wanted to be done through out NCAAW basketball. It seems to work pretty well. So I am a sell out because I give a coach a warning...how did you make that leap of faith?

Although, I Guess, Anything Is Possible
 

I find it very difficult to believe that you've never warned a coach about any type of poor behavior. You call a foul on his player and after you report the foul the coach states to you, "He traveled before he got hit. You missed it", and you hit him with a technical foul right away for questioning your call? There's a spectrum of choices that we can use to control a coach, and his bench, from simply ignoring, all the way up to, and including, an ejection. A simple warning is one of those many choices.

That comment wouldn't require a T nor would I warn for it.

Yep.

Peace

Exactly. I'm not even responding to it 99% of the time. The other 1%, I regret my response.

Allow me to be clear, I cannot think of any situation involving poor or unsporting behavior in which I believe that a technical foul is deserved that I would instead merely issue a warning and fail to penalize the offender, whether he be a coach or a player.
If the current NCAAW rules are moving towards requiring a warning for a behavioral offense, not simply straying from the coaching box, prior to permitting a technical foul being issued, then I believe that that is going the wrong direction and allowing the mostly coaches and ADs who sit on the rules committee to inappropriately shift the balance in favor of preventing penalties for themselves.
Furthermore, I do believe that any official who would bend to those wishes (out of a desire to take the D1 paycheck) is a sell-out. Officials should be strong and insist upon proper respect when working a contest. Having a system in place which permits behavior counter to that without penalty is unacceptable working conditions for any official with an ounce of self-respect.
That's my position on this matter.

I respect your opinion...I just 100% disagree with you...and that is what makes the world a beautiful place.

I don't think they are saying that.

Instead, I think they are saying "look for an opportunity to warn about the less egregious behavior (in an attempt) to prevent the more egregious behavior."

An analogy I've been working on:

If you creep out onto a frozen lake, and you hear the ice crack, you can scurry back to shore. If you go out again, the ice is already weakened and you'll fall through. Or, if you go charging out to the middle, you won't hear the warning of the cracking ice and you'll fall through.

Nevada is an expert on everybody else's character. He also thinks his opinion should be the basis of what should or shouldn't be accepted. He thinks if he were an NCAA supervisor that he wouldn't have keep his coaches and ADs happy.

Really? What if a player has had an ongoing dialog with someone on the other team. It is a tight game in crunch time...that player gets fouled fairly hard but clean (doesn't merit intentional). Standing right next to you he says so softly that you barely understand it about the other player "F'ing jerk". Are you going to whack him or just say something along the lines of "I know you're frustrated but I heard that. If someone else in the gym hears you say something like that you will leave me no option."

I have chosen the later before and the player in question settled down, composed himself and we finished with no further language or incident. Until now, he and I were the only two that knew about the exchange. I did point out to my partner that those two were heating up again and we needed to watch them.

You had a player use the f-word about an opposing player in a high school game and you didn't penalize him? I'd say that was the wrong choice.
You should read the NFHS mission statement in the front of the rules book. Don't forget what we are trying to teach in this country through high school sports.

If you mean that I believe that people should in general act with professionalism, civility, respect, and integrity, then yes, that should be the gauge of what is acceptable and what is not.

The goals of HS and NCAA athletics have diverged over the past couple of decades. HS sports are an extension of the classroom and a teaching environment for young people who need to develop character as they grow into future leaders of our society. NCAA sports have become increasingly about money and generating revenue for the institutions which field the teams. With big money TV contracts and large coach salaries, the environment and focus are different. Almost no one is feeding his family by coaching HS, but people certainly do make a living, and often a very good one, coaching at the college level.

Therefore, the role of the officiating supervisor is different. At the HS level there is no need for the coaches or the ADs to have any say in the officiating process. All that the officials owe them is an honest effort (hustle), fairness in treating both teams equally, and looking out for the safety of all contestants. Allowing the coaches and ADs any other influence would negatively impact the integrity of the game.

At the college level, the supervisor must balance protecting the integrity of the game with the desire of the coaches and ADs to generate revenue. The games have become a spectator product for the paying customer. If the official is going to accept such a position and be compensated accordingly for it, then he need be ready to also accept the other factors which accompany that.

Just to clarify: Is A1 making the comment at B1 or about B1?

Why does that matter?

I'm with Nevada on this issue: "f-ing jerk" gets an easy T. If it's "about" the other player, it's a T. If it's "at" the other player, it's possibly flagrant.

I won't lose sleep either way.

And in most cases, that dialogue should have been nipped early for just this reason.