Conference with head coach

[Mike51]

NF What is the correct procedure when a coach wants to discuss a call or non-call with the referee? Does he have to use a timeout? What if he is out of TO's?
TIA

[JRutledge]

First of all the only thing that can be discussed is a rules interpretation or clarification. If the rule is not changed, then it turns into a timeout. If the ruling is reversed, the coach gets no timeout. If there is any discussion of a judgment, then the discussion is over and charge the coach a timeout. If there is no timeout, then it is delay of game.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Mike51

What is the correct procedure when a coach wants to discuss a call or non-call with the referee? Does he have to use a timeout? What if he is out of TO's?
TIA

CANADIAN MECHANIC:

No TO is needed, nor charged. HC: asks side guy for a conference, or yells out so loud that the WH hears the request as well. Side guys finds out for what reason. If it is to question judgment, the conference is not permitted. If it is to clarify a rule, or interpretation, then it is permitted. Repeated delays should be not granted.

The side guy should not delay the play that is about to occur in favour of informing the WH of a valid conference request, but rather let the WH know after that play and then the WH can also decide if the request is warranted. Often a simple one or two lines can answer a HC's question.

[trocared]

the head coach needs to request a time-out for a conference. If there was a misaplication of a rule, procedure, etc, and is corrected, the coach does not lose a timeout. If there was not a misaplication, the coach is charged with a time-out, and, if he was out of timeouts, is penalized for delay of game.
cheers,
tro


added wow, you guys are fast

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by trocared

the head coach needs to request a time-out for a conference. If there was a misaplication of a rule, procedure, etc, and is corrected, the coach does not lose a timeout. If there was not a misaplication, the coach is charged with a time-out, and, if he was out of timeouts, is penalized for delay of game.
cheers,
tro


added wow, you guys are fast

Rut is fast.... like a gazelle.

[Rich]

Rules interpretation, right.

We had a coach who wanted a conference because the umpire wasn't born with eyes in the back of his head and didn't throw a pass interference flag on a quick slant that almost took his head off.

The HC kept telling me I had to go talk to him. I did a great imitation of a referee with his back to the coach. Of course, the coach was so off base, I wouldn't have known where to start with him, so probably best I just didn't pay attention to him.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: When a coach asks for this conference, a time-out is immediately charged to the requesting coach’s team. You don't wait to see what the outcome of the discussion is to determine what kind of time-out to charge. Note: It’s a charged time-out. This means that three attendants are allowed to enter the field and either of the two authorized conferences is allowed to commence. If the coach/referee conference ends quickly and the referee’s ruling is upheld, the charged time-out stays charged and will continue to its conclusion (not more than one minute). If the coach’s position prevails and the referee concurs that a mistake was made, the charged time-out reverts to an official’s time-out and ends immediately. All attendants leave the field and play is resumed after the required correction is made.

If the discussion takes longer than the one-minute allocated to the charged time-out, the extension is considered an official’s time-out, since a charged time out may not exceed one minute in length.

The big myth that exists here is that an official’s time-out is taken to discuss the rule with the requesting coach, and then it turns into a charged time-out if the referee’s ruling prevails, when in fact, it’s just the opposite. The charged time-out always occurs first and is then rescinded if the coach’s appeal is proven to be correct.

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Rules interpretation, right.

We had a coach who wanted a conference because the umpire wasn't born with eyes in the back of his head and didn't throw a pass interference flag on a quick slant that almost took his head off.

The HC kept telling me I had to go talk to him. I did a great imitation of a referee with his back to the coach. Of course, the coach was so off base, I wouldn't have known where to start with him, so probably best I just didn't pay attention to him.

Rich,

In our association, when a coach requests a coach/referee conference, the end man stops the clock and lets the R know about the request. If the coach is yelling loud enough for the R to hear him, and the end man has not reacted, the R stops the clock. If, once the R gets to the sideline, the coach wants to discuss something other than the possible misapplication/misinterpretation of a rule, the coach/referee conference is immediately over and the R returns to his position. The coach has the remaining time to talk to his team.

Personally, even if the issue is something other than a rule misapplication/misinterpretation, I will stick around and let the coach vent on me a little. Usually, letting him get it out of his system calms him down and makes the rest of the game go smoother. Ignoring him only seems to fan the flames.

[bisonlj]

I assume you all don't use this logic if there was a strange play that just needs an explanation to the coach. For example, the first time we had a personal foul on the defense during a touchdown and the offense chose to enforce it on the kickoff, I took 20 seconds to explain what happened to the coach. It wasn't a question of penalty enforcement or rule interpretation but I felt a brief explanation was warranted. Situations like this seem to happen about every other game and I think are warranted to help with official-coach communication.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I assume you all don't use this logic if there was a strange play that just needs an explanation to the coach. For example, the first time we had a personal foul on the defense during a touchdown and the offense chose to enforce it on the kickoff, I took 20 seconds to explain what happened to the coach. It wasn't a question of penalty enforcement or rule interpretation but I felt a brief explanation was warranted. Situations like this seem to happen about every other game and I think are warranted to help with official-coach communication.

And as a coach, we greatly appreciate that! Our "rule" is that if an official explains a call like that, we thank them and absolutely do not try to prolong the conversation or pull the "Yeah, well what about..." crap. A quick explanation gets a quick thank you and away we go. That kind of communication is a wonderful thing for the game.

[parepat]

On a few occassions a coach has called a time out. On the way out to the huddle he takes a detour over to me and starts asking questions. At that point I need to determine whether he wants a conference or is just taking a quick shot on the way to his team. WHen you ask a coach if they want a conference they usually look at you with complete confusion. I am suprised that so very few coaches take advantage of this rule. I have 2 brothers who are head coaches (the gene pool gets a little shallow in my family) and I tell them to use it. Guess how many times they have done it. zero.

[Forksref]

When I was a wing, and I tell my wings this now, when a coach is yacking or whining, I would say, "Coach, do you want a timeout?" That usually ends it. Like the above post, most coaches don't take advantage of the conference timeout. Rarely, and I mean verrry rarely, does a coach want to talk about a rule application. It's almost always about judgment.