Argumentative Coach on Substitution

[huh?]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Again, the OP, even in his irritation with the coach, did not suggest "go after the kid". That was brought up as "instructional" to the coach to get him to abide by the sub rule; in a discussion separate from the possible dissent. The possible dissent did not belong to the essence of this topic, it is about sub rules; which our Nevada friend detailed and explained quite well. The OP included "Suggestions on how to handle this?"; which means we all make suggestions and the suggestion you dislike was clearly part of influencing the coach; not a statement that anyone would actually issue a caution to a player for being there.

yes, by all means share your opinions and ideas, I am all for that - even when those opinions are different from what I would consider correct. i enjoy reading and debating opinions and ideas.

It seems that a few of you have little room in your minds for a differing view point, which is sad. i disagree greatly with the approach suggested, because of what it appears to be. Appearances matter, and even if i completely believe that the referee who admittedly chooses to escalate little pi$$ing contests never intends to use this as a payback to a coach who has gotten on a nerve, the appearance is much different. it jumps right out at me and i would guess it would to others also

btw, if the referee tells a coach that he would have to book the kid if the coach did not send him on as a sub (nv did state this, right?), but had not intention of actually doing so, that is even worse imo. i have refereed games with guys like that, who are happy to operate by threat and smart aleck comments fired back at the coach, and still believe it is wrong. different strokes for different folks, huh?