Page 1 of 3
No Technical(ity)
Posted: Sun Apr 4, 2010 11:36 am
by Klomp
http://www.startribune.com/sports/wolve ... page=2&c=yIt pays to stay calm
Honesty is the best policy with referees, Rambis knows. That's a belief that dates to his playing days, when a referee pulled him aside during a stoppage in play. An opponent was loudly complaining that Rambis had fouled him, but there was no whistle.
"He asked me, 'Kurt, did you foul him?' I said, 'I hacked him," Rambis recalled. "He said, 'Damn,' but he appreciated the honesty."
Rambis' positive relationship has carried over to his new position as an NBA coach. He's seen plenty of calls that make him angry, but he's not prone to outbursts. And as a result, Rambis has been whistled for only four technical fouls with the Wolves, or less than half as many as NBA leaders Mike Woodson of Atlanta and Indiana's Jim O'Brien, who have 10 apiece.
"Sometimes I get angry. But my approach is to talk to the referees. Nobody likes to be yelled at, to be screamed at," Rambis said. "There are times when it's appropriate and you go and talk to the referee. After going through it as a player myself, I learned they respond better if you have a conversation about it."
That approach has rubbed off on his players. Wolves players have collected a mere eight technicals all season, or half as many as Rasheed Wallace and Dwight Howard.
And only the Knicks (10), Sixers (10) and Nets (11) have fewer technicals this season than Minnesota's even dozen.
"Funny, you wouldn't think it would be that way, would you?" said point guard Ramon Sessions, who has not been penalized this year. "We've had a lot of losses -- it's frustrating out there. But I guess we don't say a lot."
Part of it may come from the way Rambis has preached to his team not to let anything bother them on the floor.
"One of our mantras to them all season long is, 'Just keep playing.' Regardless of what happens, we want them to stay focused on playing the game," Rambis said. "We don't call a lot of fouls in practice. Guys in the beginning were always looking at us, and as coaches we said, 'Keep playing, forget about it.' So hopefully they are learning how to play through" adversity.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Sun Apr 4, 2010 12:04 pm
by southern wolf
He should be rewarded. The #1 pick seems fair.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Sun Apr 4, 2010 12:47 pm
by slinky
Dont be greedy, the #2 would be just fine...along with Aldrich dropping to #15ish...Pekovic hanging in europe another year, and someone taking Hollins for us...but dont be greedy
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Sun Apr 4, 2010 6:47 pm
by shrink
I understand that some players and coaches try to use bad behavior as a method for motivating themselves or their team, or to try to get in another play's head. On the other hand, NBA referees have the ability to punish you for it -- and levy additional punishment for borderline plays. Recall how ex-ref Tim Donaghy used to gamble knowing some refs had it out for some (deserving) players?
I don't buy the "role model" talk, but professional athletes and coaches do have an influence on young people, and I think they should act responsibly. Immature and disrespectful behavior has no place in sports, and I think we've accepted it for too long. If you do something that would make your grandmother embarrased over you, its something that a person should be ashamed of, and shouldn't be tolerated. Alternate technicals with game suspensions. Play 4-on-5.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Sun Apr 4, 2010 7:29 pm
by Cyborg21
southern wolf wrote:He should be rewarded. The #1 pick seems fair.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Mon Apr 5, 2010 5:13 pm
by john2jer
Hmm, we're forth in the league for fewest techincals behind the Knicks, Sixers, and Nets.
What do those teams all have in common?
Maybe this article ain't such a good thing.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Mon Apr 5, 2010 5:32 pm
by ritt0093
shrink wrote:If you do something that would make your grandmother embarrased over you, its something that a person should be ashamed of, and shouldn't be tolerated. Alternate technicals with game suspensions. Play 4-on-5.
I like this approach. The one thing I can not stand with Technicals is that they don't count as personal fouls as well. Maybe I can see not having defensive 3 seconds count as a personal foul, but if you aggressivly foul a guy so much that it is a technical, it should count in your PFs tally too. This is something the Olympics does that I wish the NBA would adopt.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Mon Apr 5, 2010 5:34 pm
by john2jer
As a coach, I've intentionall drawn a techincal on myself to fire my team up. It works pretty well. Of course I know where the line is, so that I don't cross it and get tossed. I've never been tossed.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Mon Apr 5, 2010 5:42 pm
by ChazzleDazzle
What about that time you asked the Ref to toss you so that Shooter would get a chance to coach. Yeah, I was watching...
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Mon Apr 5, 2010 6:01 pm
by john2jer
ChazzleDazzle wrote:What about that time you asked the Ref to toss you so that Shooter would get a chance to coach. Yeah, I was watching...
Shooter deserved a chance. I figured it was his only hope in getting off the sauce. Plus I wanted him to make his boy proud.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Mon Apr 5, 2010 6:17 pm
by casey
ritt0093 wrote:shrink wrote:If you do something that would make your grandmother embarrased over you, its something that a person should be ashamed of, and shouldn't be tolerated. Alternate technicals with game suspensions. Play 4-on-5.
I like this approach. The one thing I can not stand with Technicals is that they don't count as personal fouls as well. Maybe I can see not having defensive 3 seconds count as a personal foul, but if you aggressivly foul a guy so much that it is a technical, it should count in your PFs tally too. This is something the Olympics does that I wish the NBA would adopt.
The majority of the time in that situation it's called a flagrant foul. I don't think u should get a foul for arguing with the ref or things like that.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Mon Apr 5, 2010 6:32 pm
by shrink
john2jer wrote:As a coach, I've intentionall drawn a techincal on myself to fire my team up. It works pretty well. Of course I know where the line is, so that I don't cross it and get tossed. I've never been tossed.
And it's sometimes a smart thing to do to win a game.
To me, that means there is a flaw in the rules. I think we should install rules to discourage bad behavior.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Mon Apr 5, 2010 6:47 pm
by john2jer
shrink wrote:john2jer wrote:As a coach, I've intentionall drawn a techincal on myself to fire my team up. It works pretty well. Of course I know where the line is, so that I don't cross it and get tossed. I've never been tossed.
And it's sometimes a smart thing to do to win a game.
To me, that means there is a flaw in the rules. I think we should install rules to discourage bad behavior.
You can draw a technical without "bad behavior", though. Don't have to be a flat out jerk and call the ref names, but if you question their consistency and effort, it gets the point across, draws the technical, and pisses your players off. Or at least it does for my squad. This is my last spring with these guys, I'm gonna miss them.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Mon Apr 5, 2010 6:55 pm
by shrink
john2jer wrote:shrink wrote:john2jer wrote:As a coach, I've intentionall drawn a techincal on myself to fire my team up. It works pretty well. Of course I know where the line is, so that I don't cross it and get tossed. I've never been tossed.
And it's sometimes a smart thing to do to win a game.
To me, that means there is a flaw in the rules. I think we should install rules to discourage bad behavior.
You can draw a technical without "bad behavior", though. Don't have to be a flat out jerk and call the ref names, but if you question their consistency and effort, it gets the point across, draws the technical, and pisses your players off. Or at least it does for my squad. This is my last spring with these guys, I'm gonna miss them. :-(
I say that's disrespectful bad behavior.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Mon Apr 5, 2010 7:03 pm
by john2jer
Ah, suck it up. If a ref is calling a good game, then I have no complaints, even if we're losing. If he's sucking ass, not being consistent, failing at his job? Then yeah, he deserves to hear about it.
If I have a question about a call because I don't understand what he called, or I didn't have the view that he did? Then I'm respectful. I call them "sir" or "ma'am". I know many of them on a first name basis, but I still show respect. If I agree with the call and my player doesn't, then I'll correct my player, and agree with the ref.
I'm talking shoddy officiating by a hack who either has an agenda, or just doesn't care.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Tue Apr 6, 2010 1:23 am
by Breakdown777
I think some behaviors that result in tech's are are viewed as bad behavior such as throwing things, cursing, insulting the ref.
But some other things that deserve tech's "continually arguing, telling the ref he/she is not being consistent/doing a poor job" I don't see anything wrong with. Part of any game is arguing the rules, and arguing about what is considered fair. You can view telling the ref what you think of his performance insulting, but it doesn't always have to be. I agree that a harsher punishment could be served, but nothing too severe.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Tue Apr 6, 2010 4:15 am
by shrink
Why is any argueing with the ref "part of the game?" Is argueing with the cops "part of law enforcement?" Is argueing with a judge "part of the legal process?" Argueing with a teacher "part of the education process?"
IN MLB, we see animated arguments with a coach and an umpire two inches apart, screaming at each other ... and the fans love it and cheer. In football, we have end zone dances and taunting. Everyone hopes for a fight in the NHL, and there are players on rosters specifically for that purpose. In every sport we have trash talking of other players and officials, and obscene gestures.
I think the NBA rule is that you can question a call, but you can't show up the refs, but this is something some coaches do intentionally, because the slap on the wrist is too small a cost for the chance to motivate a team. We say we don't like thugs, but teach them that its acceptable at every level. How about we set examples and recognize self-respect and respecting others?
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Tue Apr 6, 2010 1:45 pm
by C.lupus
Because that doesn't motivate the players. It provides a good role model for the players but it doesn't motivate them and that is the whole point of behaving like an idiot in the first place. Sure it would be wonderful if all professional players could be motivated solely on respect and love and peace and harmony but it doesn't work that way. It's a biochemical response. Sometimes players just need an extra push to get optimal performance just like desk jockeys sometimes need a little push to get out of their rut in the office.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Tue Apr 6, 2010 1:55 pm
by Worm Guts
I don't know if that changes shrink's point. So what if it motivates players? (and i'm not sure it does) If you make the penalties severe enough, coaches won't use it as a motivational tool, and it's worth sacrificing it as a tool to encourage better behavior.
Of course I don't think it's a big issue either way.
Re: No Technical(ity)
Posted: Tue Apr 6, 2010 2:08 pm
by C.lupus
But it IS a motivational tool that has proven results (not 100% all the time but in certain circumstances)*. As long as it works to motivate certain players, coaches will use it or coaches will be unemployed. Good coaches use every tool available to help the team win games. Bad coaches don't and find themselves out of work. I'm sorry, I agree with shrink on a personal level and wish it wasn't so but it is.
*no I don't have any citations for that statement, just my observations.