Nebraska/Indiana coaches confrontation
 

9:43 second half after a hard foul.

http://thebiglead.com/2014/12/31/vid...d-altercation/

Would anyone else consider handing out a double technical to get the coaches to stop acting like children?

Not only would I, but I did once.

One coach was very late getting to the gym, the opposing coach made a snide comment about it at some point late in the first quarter, and then they were just back and forth with each other for the next 2-3 minutes. It was a quiet gym, so everyone in the stands could see and hear it. Quite embarrassing for everyone, including the players. After a staredown or two, I finally had enough. Ball was being advanced in the backcourt, they were being chippy again, and I whacked 'em both.

The weird thing was they both seemed to appreciate it because it gave them an excuse to shut up. Seat belt was fastened, add one team foul to both sides, and just inbound the ball at the POI. One of them said, "that's cool, as long as it doesn't affect the kids."

It was quite effective, it fit, and was very defendable. A tool in your toolkit if you ever need it.

That was not a dirty play at all and does not warrant one-tenth of the pissy fit that Tom Crean throws. Then Tim Miles overreacted with his little "hold me back" episode and wouldn't let it go. At least Crean, who started the spat, walked away.

Both coaches acted like brats and are getting whacked if it's my game.

Double T from me.

The game not only has to be held up because of them, but I also have to restrain one or both? Yeah... double-tech

Fans always say that they don't watch games to see officials make themselves the show. Well, I for one don't watch games to see the coaches make themselves the show. This episode, in my opinion, highlights one of the biggest problems facing college basketball.

Seems to me when a game gets delayed by this kind of garbage that has assistants involved it should be at least a double T. One assistant was right up there he was not helping.... Tell the assistants to get back.. If they don't whack them too. The official right in front of Indiana coach can hear him yapping, he did not turn around and tell him to knock it off. He could have stopped him from walking to Center court but almost encourages him to get close to Miles.

Seems to me this is where college coaches have too much influence over the college game. The coaches get away with too much because "their job is always on the line"

College coaches are like many overpaid whiny brats in other leagues or sports. At least in the NBA the commissioner is in charge. They will keep doing this until someone stops them.

No other job in the world allows people to act like children when they get stressed.

wwe? . . .

Was at the game.

The fouler (Webster) goes over near the Hoosier bench and stands awaiting the upcoming free throws. While he's there it appears Crean is talking to him which is followed by smiles by Webster. Crean then looks down towards the Husker bench and starts gesturing. This provokes a response from Miles. The ref's actually stop play and bring the coaches together, which seemed odd.

Crean was accused of saying "shut up" to Miles. I disagreed with how the officials handled this. I would have given each coach a stern warning without bringing them together and delaying the game. If they keep going, easy double whack and that'll take care of it.

Crean had no right to b*tch about the foul and Miles had no right to react that way. No place for this behavior.

I can't second guess what the officials did...wasn't there and have no idea what the climate was leading up to the confrontation BUT to an outside observer, stopping the game and bringing them together just brought more attention to it. I certainly wouldn't try that move in a HS game...seems like gas on a fire to me.

I agree with Zebra, in hindsight, it seems like a bad idea bringing the coaches together. As for SC Official comment that Crean had not right to b****, if collage coaches only B****ed when they had a legitimate gripe they would have to figure out something new to do for half the game.

You are way too attached to this subjective, three-pronged criteria.
It is just some catch-phrase that a supervisor or camp clinician came up with.

Wasn't Tom Crean involved in some pissing match with an opposing coach last year too?

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.