Proper Enforcement

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

When it's obvious, we do not ask. It's obvious in this case.

This is largely a personal choice, and whatever works, works. However, it's not unusual that "obvious" can mean different things to different people. Options can be given, briefly, that explain "obvious" choices so that there is no doubt which is considered the appropriate choice, ay least by the Referee.

Any coach who asks, "why are you asking me" doesn't deserve an answer to that question, and perhaps underscores why NF: 2-32-5-b specifically designates "A captain of a team is a player designated to represent his team during; (b) Penalty decisions following a foul."

Sharing explanations, especially those that may be unusually complicated, with a Coach can often be helpful, but is a, usually worthwhile, professional curtesy.

[JRutledge]

I would simply say to the coach or captain, "Do you want the ball?" Then go back to the other coach and give them their options and once again move on.

That will end that discussion.

Peace

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

This is largely a personal choice, and whatever works, works. However, it's not unusual that "obvious" can mean different things to different people. Options can be given, briefly, that explain "obvious" choices so that there is no doubt which is considered the appropriate choice, ay least by the Referee.

Any coach who asks, "why are you asking me" doesn't deserve an answer to that question, and perhaps underscores why NF: 2-32-5-b specifically designates "A captain of a team is a player designated to represent his team during; (b) Penalty decisions following a foul."

Sharing explanations, especially those that may be unusually complicated, with a Coach can often be helpful, but is a, usually worthwhile, professional curtesy.

So if you have a DPI call when B intercepts and returns the ball for a TD, you are going to ask the A coach, "Do you want the ball back with a 15-yard penalty or do you want to allow them the TD?" I looked through our penalty report from Saturday. Of the 19 fouls, 14 of them were obvious (DPI, holding on long gains, DB UNS, targeting, DB illegal substitution). Two others were offsides on a free kick and free kick out of bounds. We offered choices because they have different ways they can enforce the penalty. The three that weren't obvious had choices like 3rd and 8 or 2nd and 14. If we were to track them I would guess these are pretty standard percentages.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

This is largely a personal choice, and whatever works, works. However, it's not unusual that "obvious" can mean different things to different people. Options can be given, briefly, that explain "obvious" choices so that there is no doubt which is considered the appropriate choice, ay least by the Referee.

Any coach who asks, "why are you asking me" doesn't deserve an answer to that question, and perhaps underscores why NF: 2-32-5-b specifically designates "A captain of a team is a player designated to represent his team during; (b) Penalty decisions following a foul."

Sharing explanations, especially those that may be unusually complicated, with a Coach can often be helpful, but is a, usually worthwhile, professional curtesy.

I go to the coaches. Most of the Rs that I respect, do.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Rich

I go to the coaches. Most of the Rs that I respect, do.

That's de rigueur here. I haven't once seen an R grab a captain to offer penalty enforcement options.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by Welpe

That's de rigueur here. I haven't once seen an R grab a captain to offer penalty enforcement options.

And here some white hats I work with will only talk with captains. The captain may ask the coach, but the WH's won't listen to the coach. And I have other WH's that will listen to the coach or captain. But in no cases do we just do the obvious or just ask the HC.

For my part, when I WH games, I'll listen to either, deferring to the HC. It seems to be our association's policy to always ask captains, but to precede it with "Obviously ...." when the enforcement is obvious. But this is a good point I'll bring up at our meeting next week. Should we bother to ask?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Suudy

And here some white hats I work with will only talk with captains. The captain may ask the coach, but the WH's won't listen to the coach. And I have other WH's that will listen to the coach or captain. But in no cases do we just do the obvious or just ask the HC.

For my part, when I WH games, I'll listen to either, deferring to the HC. It seems to be our association's policy to always ask captains, but to precede it with "Obviously ...." when the enforcement is obvious. But this is a good point I'll bring up at our meeting next week. Should we bother to ask?

I'm all about what makes the line of communication between me and the team better. Eliminating a 17-year-old middle man just seems like good practice to me.

Those that will argue that I'm depriving the captain of an important leadership role...I'm not persuaded. My job is to run the game as smoothly as possible.

[MD Longhorn]

Ask the captain, loudly, within earshot of the coach - and be looking at the coach. Solves this non-issue rather easily.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Ask the captain, loudly, within earshot of the coach - and be looking at the coach. Solves this non-issue rather easily.

Or just eliminate the charade entirely. I even ask the coaches what they want if they win the toss. Yes, there I go through the ceremony, but I already know what the answer is going to be.

On that note, if one team wants to defer and the other wants to receive, can we just eliminate the toss entirely?