Post by Harold of Whoa on Jan 19, 2020 1:24:21 GMT
In certain sports there is suggested to be, at least by sports announcers, some strategic value in the coach or manager getting penalized for an outburst or even ejected from the game.
This seems to be most common in basketball. I have heard announcers and analysts say on a number of occasions something like "He needed to take that T" or words to that effect in reference to a coach technical foul for berating the officials.
Baseball managers also seem to have an implied strategic ejection, to where accosting an umpire to the point of being ejected from the game is supposed to serve some purpose.
On the other hand, football coaches (American football) very rarely get penalized, and if they do it is seemingly never analyzed as some intentional move, but rather merely a loss of control due to the emotion of the moment.
My question is in two parts: first, do you recognize some value to the psychological tactic of a coach/manager deliberately incurring a penalty, presumably as some sort of protest against poor officiating, either to rally the team or make the officials 'do better'? Second, why would this same tactic not be equally useful in football?
I suspect Brits need not apply for answering this question, since your sports are either too genteel for such boorishness (cricket) or at the total opposite end of the spectrum, where protesting the officials is accomplished by hours of mayhem and arson spilling into the streets (futbol).
This seems to be most common in basketball. I have heard announcers and analysts say on a number of occasions something like "He needed to take that T" or words to that effect in reference to a coach technical foul for berating the officials.
Baseball managers also seem to have an implied strategic ejection, to where accosting an umpire to the point of being ejected from the game is supposed to serve some purpose.
On the other hand, football coaches (American football) very rarely get penalized, and if they do it is seemingly never analyzed as some intentional move, but rather merely a loss of control due to the emotion of the moment.
My question is in two parts: first, do you recognize some value to the psychological tactic of a coach/manager deliberately incurring a penalty, presumably as some sort of protest against poor officiating, either to rally the team or make the officials 'do better'? Second, why would this same tactic not be equally useful in football?
I suspect Brits need not apply for answering this question, since your sports are either too genteel for such boorishness (cricket) or at the total opposite end of the spectrum, where protesting the officials is accomplished by hours of mayhem and arson spilling into the streets (futbol).
