No one who has attended a basketball game at Cameron Indoor Stadium can reach any other conclusion but that Duke Blue Devils coach Mike Krzyzewski does histrionics better than the great divas in opera history. In fact, it could be argued that all his profanity-laced yapping and whining at officials makes one of the finest, and likely the most temperamental, sopranos in history, Maria Callas, appear downright restrained. And certainly anyone who watched the 2015 NCAA final had to give a nod to Krzyzewski’s masterful manipulation of the officials. He was so thoroughly in their heads that Duke was in a bonus situation with 11 minutes to play, and in double bonus with eight to play. After the game Wisconsin Badgers coach Bo Ryan was in such a state of utter incredulity about the officiating that he was left all but speechless. “You can’t say anything about the officiating,” he told reporters. “C’mon. Are you trying to set me up? :
Not that Krzyzewski was the only legendary coach who was, or is, an utter artist at talking smack. Anyone who ever watched U.C.L.A. coaching giant John Wooden work the refs at Pauley Pavilion was left gaping at some of the vicious insults he delivered from behind his strategically folded program.
And not that there aren’t Canadian Interuniversity Sport ref-baiters par excellence. Many CIS coaches say Carleton’s Dave Smart is an utter genius at intimidating refs with a word, a glare or a gesture. Others laud ex-University of Alberta men’s coach Don Horwood’s finely-honed use of sarcasm. Several Canada West coaches even have favorite Horwood lines, like the time he hollered to officials to allow a foe to just “dribble to half-court and then let him shoot fouls. It’ll save time.”
It’s all part and parcel of the modern game. It’s hard to imagine but it wasn’t that long ago that coaches weren’t even allowed to talk to an official during a game. That was true when Canada first adopted FIBA rules (2006-07 for women and 2007-08 for men), while, in even earlier days, coaches actually couldn’t talk to their own players, let alone an official.
Now, watching all that theatrical flailing, pleading, pontificating and scowling on the sidelines is almost worth the price of admission. Working the refs often seems more like working over the refs. Everyone seems to have a different strategy, right from the start of a game, when officials and coaches shake hands. Some call each other by their first name (trying to establish familiarity and a degree of camaraderie); others are invariably civil but stoic (believing it establishes a measure of professionalism). Mid-game inquiries can seem like a chat between chums (with coaches and refs putting an arm around one another), or a hands-on-hips, ready-for-a-shootout at the OK corral.
Some coaches adopt the Krzyzewski theory of constant harangue, hoping to wear down officials to the point where they’ll overlook an infringement, or make a favourable call, in exchange for a fractional measure of relief from hootin and hollerin. Others take a less-is-more approach, hoping that a reputation for civility builds points for those rare instances in which they eventually go ballistic.
Some referees respond to challenges with a how-dare-you-question-me glare, others with a quick and friendly “that’s what I saw, so that’s what I called,” or with detailed explanations of the call, often leaving the rival coach steaming mad because he’s not party to the private conversation between old friends.
From decades of watching CIS ball, a number of conclusions can be safely drawn about coach-referee interactions. First, there are literally hundreds of ways to express incredulity. Second, coaches believe working the refs has become a necessary condition, of both the game and success. In fact, several say it’s absolutely integral to their game plans. If, for example, a foe has a dominant post player, they’ll immediately start asking refs to watch for three seconds in the paint, or over-the-back calls on rebounds. It’s all about planting seeds in the minds of officials. Another obvious truth is that male coaches are allowed far more latitude than female coaches. Finally, in a game in which a few calls can determine the outcome, referees have decided games in the past, and will decide many a game in the future.
Most referees, of course, will flatly deny that. Of course, most will also say they have never made a bad call. Several officials (speaking on condition of anonymity) also argue that the very notion of working the refs has to be viewed through the filter of motivation. As one notes, “we’re just trying to get the call right. They’re trying to win.”
That’s a valid point and certainly, the vast majority of officials appear well-intentioned, and no one could argue that all coaches retain their wits and poise at all times, or that their intentions are always pure.
But it’s a stretch to say that calls aren’t blown. In fact, it’s typically held there are about 10 bad or questionable calls in every game, most often on the trickiest of all calls: block/charges. And it’s reality that some calls are simply horrific calls, and often, a direct function of an official losing his cool. Or in some cases, they’re the product of an official’s character. Some refs blow the whistle, as highly-respected former FIBA official and Commissioner Valentin Lazarov wrote in the Psychology of Officiating, simply because they are narcissistic “Kings” of the court determined to exercise power, oft-times because they don’t have any in their off-court lives.
Such officials may lie at heart of a flat refusal by most CIS coaches to even discuss working the refs. All 94 were contacted for this article but most either declined to respond or to comment on the record, for fear, as one notes, that their team “will pay a heavy price” down the road. Canadian refs, adds an Ontario University Athletics coach, “are not the most forgiving group.” Others, like an Atlantic University Sport coach, argue that nothing is accomplished through discussions about officiating. “Talking about refs is a waste of time.”
It is, of course, extraordinarily revealing, and an altogether sad commentary about the sorry state of Canadian officiating, that so many coaches believe the majority of refs are that vindictive, and that all facets of officiating, or coach-official communications, are therefore taboo topics, even at so benign a level as to whether or not working the refs has any value.
Still, not all were gun-shy, though some say they disdain the practice.
“I don’t believe working the refs works in any form,” says Toronto men’s coach John Campbell. “In my opinion, the refs make each call objectively and independent of any outside influence. Any coach feedback is generally for the benefit of the coach.”
“If a coach is upset with a call, then they are usually relieving frustration,” says Carleton women’s coach Taffe Charles.
Others say that working the refs, and working over the refs, are two completely different things. “I don’t believe in working the refs with regard to the current accepted shouting or abusive criticism,” says Calgary women’s coach Damian Jennings. “They are human beings, and like the coaches and the players are often less than perfect. However, that does not give us any right to be abusive, however frustrating poor calls may feel. I do believe that the majority, or the best officials, are open to feedback during games about areas of the game that are being missed.”
Most coaches, such as St. Francis Xavier women’s coach Augy Jones, also believe they have a “responsibility” to advocate on behalf of their players.
“I feel that if don’t say anything, I may be hurting my team,” says UPEI women’s coach Greg Gould.
“For me, it is about fighting for my players and their efforts,” says Ryerson women’s coach Carly Clarke.
“You gotta protect your team if you feel [officials] are not being fair,” says Concordia men’s coach Rastko Popovic.
“I wouldn’t call it ‘working the refs’ but rather, doing my job to ensure that both sides of the floor are called evenly as possible,” says Nipissing men’s coach Chris Cheng. “Both coaches would like to see a fair game called but also, at the same time, we try to create an advantage for our team with hopes it comes at a critical time in the game.”
“I try not to talk to the refs very much because I don’t think it helps,” says Saskatchewan women’s coach Lisa Thomaidis. “But when you see other coaches working them, and the perceived positive result that they get from doing that, it’s hard not to join in the game.”
“When I see the other coach working the refs, then I have no choice,” adds uOttawa men’s coach James Derouin. “Even without hearing specifically what the other coach is saying, it is not difficult to connect the dots with what is happening on the floor. If you feel like a coach is getting an advantage, then you have no choice but to compete.”
And competition, of course, leads to all manner of strategies and suppositions about what works and what doesn’t, all of which soon takes on often mind-boggling forms of psychological warfare, between coaches and officials, and occasionally, between coaches, through officials, or even about other officials. Coaches can often be heard reminding referees not to succumb to either the blandishments or the intimidating behaviour of the opposing coach. Similarly, they often appeal to one ref to offset either the overcalling, or the lack of calls, by another official.
It all quickly becomes a self-perpetuating and highly-entertaining sideshow, and arguably, it may serve to elevate the quality of officiating, both within a game, and through time, though it may often appear to be little more than mud-slinging.
Do coaches believe that it works?
“Very little chance,” says Manitoba men’s coach Kirby Schepp. “But we still do it.”
“Sometimes, this immediately changes the way the officials are calling the game,” says York women’s coach Erin McAleenan. “Other times, it doesn’t change a thing.”
“I would like to believe the refs take into account what we’re saying/asking/yelling or at times cussing,” says Concordia women’s coach Tenicha Gittens. “Some refs you can work more than others and it has no impact. Others (roughly two in our conference) will actually talk to you and listen to you voice your concern/s.”
It depends, says Waterloo women’s coach Tyler Slipp. “Different styles work for different refs and coaches.”
“Sometimes you’ll see a make-up call (yes, they do happen). But in my limited experience, working some officials can hurt you, and working others can help,” says Acadia women’s coach Len Harvey. “Like a comedian, you have to know your audience. Some officials will dig in to their position when questioned. Others will unravel. The best ones see the give-and-take, and balance things out within the flow of the game. I think it can relieve frustration, but usually just will add to the frustration you’re feeling, depending on how the official deals with it.”
There’s probably a direct correlation between the efficacy of working a ref and the character of that ref, observes Queen’s women’s coach Dave Wilson. “It’s only human nature. We all have a desire to be liked and not to be criticized or be hounded, and so when we have external factors like that, they can be influencing. … But it can work both ways. With some, you can get under their skin and then you’re going to pay for it. Yet, to a great extent, I don’t think any of this happens in the conscious mind and that’s where it gets tricky.”
It’s a valid argument, given that referees often have such completely different personalities and that what they call appears to depend on how they’ve been taught to officiate, or what to look for. Each also appears to have a different notion of what actually constitutes a foul.
Certainly, there are many occasions in which a coach can be heard pleading for a specific call from the sidelines, and sure enough, on the next possession, that call is made. That subliminal effect is confirmed by the fact that several coaches say referees have told them that if, for example, “a coach tells him to watch for the hand-checking, he’s going to watch for the hand-checking.”
“It’s only natural,” says one referee. “If you keep hearing it in the background, it’s only human to start watching for it. The subconscious mind does it for you.”
In a similar vein, both a coach’s and a program’s reputation are commonly held to have a subliminal effect on how games are called.
Or as Laurentian women’s coach Jason Hurley notes, it’s a simple reality that “if a Laurentian player travels, and a Windsor player travels, it’s not the same call. One is called for a travel and the other is not called for a travel. … And some people would say that if everybody acted like Dave [Smart], there’d be a lot more assistant coaches coaching games, because they would get tossed. Has he earned that? I guess he has.”
It’s an entirely valid point. There’s no question some veteran coaches get away with antics that aren’t tolerated in younger coaches, almost as if officials have become so accustomed to the histrionics of some coaches that they treat it as background noise.
That hasn’t gone unnoticed. There is a difference “in reactions from officials when I can speak to officials compared to my more experienced colleagues,” observes MacEwan men’s coach Eric Magdanz. “I do not think refs are purposely unfair to me, but I do think that the reputation of the coach and the team can influence officials in how they call the game.”
Rookie UBC Okanagan women’s coach Claire Meadows concurs. “As a first year coach, many refs that called my games did not know me and I don’t think many had a lot of respect for me. That being said, I had to watch how much and what I said to them. It was a fine balance and a slippery slope if I went too far. I think that coaches who have been in the league for a while, and have the respect of some refs, can work them at a different rate and have more leeway to what they can say.”
Second-year Acadia men’s coach Kevin Duffie surmises the relationship between any specific referee and coach varies with experience and time. “They’re human beings. You can’t treat them like crap all the time. Sometimes you feel like you’re being cheated or they’re doing a bad job and you just blame them for it. You know, they got a tough job. I don’t think anybody’s out there trying to cheat you.”
Given that coaches and referees are often long-term fixtures on the CIS hoops scene, it begs another question: Do CIS coaches keep a book on Canadian refs, reminding their players, for example, that official X is 90% more likely to call a block than a charge
Most coaches respond with some variation of ‘Canadian refs are so inconsistent that it would be entirely pointless to keep a book’. Or as one Canada West coach says: “I can’t even keep a book from one quarter to the next.”
Which leaves only the matter of technical fouls, a referee’s ultimate revenge for being worked. Years of observation suggest refs having varying notions of exactly where the line is crossed. Some will tolerate off-colour language, and others not, though, as a general rule, all take umbrage at any assault on their integrity.
Without question, there probably isn’t a technical that will ever top the one taken by former Oklahoma coach Billy Tubbs, who, when asked to make a plea for fans to stop throwing debris on floor because of displeasure over the level of officiating, raised a microphone and pronounced that “the referees request that regardless of how terrible the officiating is, don’t throw stuff on the floor.”
But Harvey comes close with a tale of a technical he took while at the helm of Mount Royal. “Officials,” he notes, “want most, if not all, interaction with them to be in the form of a question. One of the other team’s players was out of bounds in front of our bench and saved the ball inbounds, with no whistle. I said: ‘She was out of bounds!’ The official asked me: “Do you have a question?’ So I responded with: Do you know what colour the sideline is? … Our coaching staff had a great laugh about that.”
Among others?
Schepp took a technical as an assistant at Winnipeg: “I had reacted to a few calls. During a free throw, one ref stood right in front of our bench with his back turned and said to head coach Bill Wedlake, ‘if your assistant says one more thing, you are getting a T.’ Coach looked at me and I said, quietly, while seated right beside him, ‘I won’t say another word’. Bang. Technical foul. They got two shots and possession. We lost the game by one.”
Mount Royal women’s coach Nathan McKibbon takes pride in one technical. The refs were ignoring reserved pleas to clamp down on physical play in the interest of player safety, so he hollered across the floor and was promptly T’d. His own players rose from the bench and “gave me a standing ovation.”
Guelph men’s coach Chris O’Rourke tells the tale of a T taken while calling on his players to box out. “I had a cold and the Halls [cough candy] in my mouth popped onto the floor. I went to kick it off as I was yelling; the ref T’d me up. I asked him why and he said: ‘You’re yelling at me, and on the floor’.”