I'm not so sure the officials brought the coaches together on purpose. I would wager that Trail (my boy Kelly Pfeifer) heard some of the ish happening behind him but when C saw what was happening and came across the floor everyone arrived around the same time.

After hearing this at camps over the past two years I tend to agree. I don't have time to think about this abstract criteria; sometimes you just gotta decide if someone needs a tech or not.

Actually it was a WNBA official that also worked as a replacement NBA official during the NBRA strike a few years back. And a Big 12 women's official.

So I tend to listen to what he has to say. His résumé isn't half bad.

By the way, I first heard it six years ago. The fact that it's still resonating on the camp circuit means it's gaining acceptance. I'm not saying I break out a checklist every time I consider a "T". It's a mental framework that you put in the back of your mind. It also helps with self-assessment after the fact, e.g., "now that the emotional moment has passed, was calling or not calling that "T" the correct action for the good of the game?"

Mayborg whistled from the C and then gestured towards Miles/Crean to meet at midcourt. Both were still in their boxes until then.

Sorry to inform you that this person didn't invent it. No doubt that he is your source for it, but it has been around WAY longer than six years.

I have heard different versions in both basketball and soccer for the past 20 years. In soccer, the use of yellow and red cards is similar to first and second techs in basketball and have been classified under the referees game and player management skills and evaluation for decades.

Sadly, some of these catch phrases become popular and are repeated, but are utterly useless for evaluation of a penalty. "Did it fit?" is the best example. That could mean just about anything to different people. One person could state that the coach was definitely outside of the box and complaining while another could say that the coach was only one step outside and wasn't overly boisterous. Way too subjective to be of any practical use.
"Was it effective?" is also pointless. By that standard if the player or coach continued to misbehave and earned another one and an ejection, then the first one must not have been effective and thus can't be classified as a quality technical foul. That's absurd.

Try simply using these evaluation criteria:
a. Was it warranted based upon the behavior or action of the individual?
b. Was it done in accordance with the rules?

That's all that you and your assignor will need.

No I'm sure he didn't invent it. But he did use it. That's good enough for me. Maybe it's not a useful tool for everyone, but I sure like it.

"Does it fit" is supposed to be subjective. That's the point. Does it fit the good of the game? I had a [expletive deleted] coach once who was awful. Earned a T early in the second quarter after a formal warning didn't phase him. But he kept at it, especially in the 2nd half. He honed in on me because I gave him the first one, almost baiting me to eject him. But the thing was, his team was losing by 30 and ultimately lost by 50. Ejecting the coach wouldn't have accomplished much of anything from a penalty standpoint other than interrupting the game and maybe making me feel a little better. So yes, I was thinking about the criteria the whole time. It didn't fit. Wouldn't have been good for the game. I could tell my partner was thinking the same thing, because he didn't run the coach, either. We talked about it after the game and agreed we'd done the right thing.

"Is it effective? is not fool proof. What works for 95% of penalty recipients will invariably not be enough for the other 5%. C'est la vie. I go with the odds.

So I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Besides, I don't see how your criteria are all that different from mine. To each his own.

They're not. Two sides of the same coin!

Either your criteria is awful or you don't understand them because both of you screwed up royally in this situation.

You let a coach "hone in" on you, keep after you, and "almost baiting" you and you didn't penalize his behavior because "he was losing by 30 and lost by 50" and you don't think that tossing him would have accomplished anything. Ouch, your thinking here is so poor!

What about setting an example for the young student-athletes in that game who were observing this unsporting behavior? What about being a positive part of supporting sporting behavior in contests? What about letting the coach know that the score doesn't matter, and he can't treat officials that way? What about the crew that works the next game involving this team and coach? Did you support them? Did your non-action help them?

You and your partner dropped the ball here and failed to support just about everything that we stand for as officials. I wish that Jurassic were still around to give you a tongue-lashing on this one.

You are darn right that we disagree. You seem to use your wishy-washy criteria, which really aren't standards at all and that is the source of the problem, to justify not penalizing unsporting behavior as in the case of this coach. That's just wrong.

My criteria are designed to get to the crux of the matter, not muck it up with flashy words that only serve to allow anyone to justify anything.

Would I have tossed your 30pt-losing coach who was misbehaving? Absolutely. Even you would have to admit that his behavior warranted a second T.

I think of other officials who work in the area, the kids watching someone who is supposed to serve as a role model for them, the kids on the opposing team, the spectators watching this display, and what scholastic athletics is supposed to teach people in our society. You and your partner failed in all of those aspects, yet your criteria permits you to conclude "we'd done the right thing" "for the good of the game." That's how are standards are different.

A blowout game should have nothing to do with whether or not you deal with poor behavior from coaches.