COACH LEAVES DUGOUT DRAMA

[Cannonball]

So, co head coaches and, if I get the drift, one gets upset enough to leave the dugout. What then happened? We don't know. Was one coach acting like THE Head Coach and making all of the decisions without talking to the other HC? Was politics being played and the one HC angry to watch it happen? We don't know. Was there some verbal conflict where it was better for the one to leave instead of making a scene in front of the players? We don't know. Was there some type of agreement made between these two coaches long before the games started that was violated? We don't know. We don't know much at all in this scenario.

Personally, I don't think it is wise to have two head coaches and I don't think it wise to just merge teams. In my experience that never works out well. I do know this, I would not do well in a situation where I made suggestions based upon agreements and then ignored. It would be better if I left the dugout though, lets face it, I would raise all types of hell.

 

[djcarter1966]

Well if I know anything and let's face it we all know this "However it is a two head coach situation. " will simply not last the season best to decide right now one way or the other.

 

[The Man In Blue]

once had a HC tell girls in between games at a tournament (they had not played well to be certain) to figure it out themselves as to what drills to run, etc. during the time they had. so DD got them together and did some run down drills, just for somethign to do to keep moving

needless to say we left as soon as that season was over (this was only one of several issues).

Like the OP scenario, there is context that can change the situation. In this case, did the coach do this out of anger? Or was it a legitimate effort to get the girls to buy-in and let them know they needed to take some ownership of their performance?

At face value, I don’t have an issue with a coach doing this assuming it is a controlled and calculated maneuver, not a temper tantrum.

At a recent volleyball tournament I was officiating a usually decent team that was just getting obliterated. I kept looking to the coach, waiting for a time out call. She noticed this and said, “I’ve done everything I can. They need to figure this out and a time out isn’t going to help that.” Knowing this team somewhat, I knew she was right. Was she upset? Oh yeah. However, this wasn’t a power move — it was an empowering move.

A coach can be a very destructive or very cohesive force. (And I still believe too many coaches in travel ball are there for selfish reasons, not selfless ones.)

 

[bmakj]

Like the OP scenario, there is context that can change the situation. In this case, did the coach do this out of anger? Or was it a legitimate effort to get the girls to buy-in and let them know they needed to take some ownership of their performance?

At face value, I don’t have an issue with a coach doing this assuming it is a controlled and calculated maneuver, not a temper tantrum.

At a recent volleyball tournament I was officiating a usually decent team that was just getting obliterated. I kept looking to the coach, waiting for a time out call. She noticed this and said, “I’ve done everything I can. They need to figure this out and a time out isn’t going to help that.” Knowing this team somewhat, I knew she was right. Was she upset? Oh yeah. However, this wasn’t a power move — it was an empowering move.

A coach can be a very destructive or very cohesive force. (And I still believe too many coaches in travel ball are there for selfish reasons, not selfless ones.)

it was a hissy fit. he thought this team was going to be much better than it was, thought he was a much better coach than he was. since he was such an awesome coach, the girls must have been the problem.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Seen that too many times ... As I said, too many coaches are there for the wrong selfish reasons.

 

[grmerrill]

They set themselves up to fail. There has to be someone that makes the final decision, and it the case of a merge situation there needs to be an agreement that both sides will be respected in their decisions. Very difficult to do if coaches are all ego and no humility. Something tells me that both coaches are critical lynch pin for the team, at least in their minds.

 

[CMMom1740]

Sounds like a case of too many chiefs, not enough Indians (I'm sure that is not PC to say anymore, but it gets the point across). With a merge situation like that, roles need to be clear. Like, "I'll manage the lineup and calling the pitches, you manage recruiting for the team and calling the plays" or whatever. Maybe switch off every other game if they can't stand the supporting role.

 

[ian]

I blame the parents.

 

[radness]

So, co head coaches and, if I get the drift, one gets upset enough to leave the dugout. What then happened? We don't know. Was one coach acting like THE Head Coach and making all of the decisions without talking to the other HC? Was politics being played and the one HC angry to watch it happen? We don't know. Was there some verbal conflict where it was better for the one to leave instead of making a scene in front of the players? We don't know. Was there some type of agreement made between these two coaches long before the games started that was violated? We don't know. We don't know much at all in this scenario.

Personally, I don't think it is wise to have two head coaches and I don't think it wise to just merge teams. In my experience that never works out well. I do know this, I would not do well in a situation where I made suggestions based upon agreements and then ignored. It would be better if I left the dugout though, lets face it, I would raise all types of hell.

For general discussion.

IF the answers to the questions in the first paragraph were reasonable....
Would they warrant a coach being such a bad example at games? Which answers could have been addressed at a better time and place?

To the second paragraph..
Kudos cannonball for knowing yourself well enough to either~
1. Work out every possible detail prior to getting into merging with another head coach.
2. Not putting yourself in that situation to begin with.
3. Warning everybody ahead of time your actions removing yourself will become a standard. AND anyone else that needs to may follow suit.
* Seriously kudos to you for knowing yourself!

 

[radness]

Like the OP scenario, there is context that can change the situation. In this case, did the coach do this out of anger? Or was it a legitimate effort to get the girls to buy-in and let them know they needed to take some ownership of their performance?

At face value, I don’t have an issue with a coach doing this assuming it is a controlled and calculated maneuver, not a temper tantrum.

At a recent volleyball tournament I was officiating a usually decent team that was just getting obliterated. I kept looking to the coach, waiting for a time out call. She noticed this and said, “I’ve done everything I can. They need to figure this out and a time out isn’t going to help that.” Knowing this team somewhat, I knew she was right. Was she upset? Oh yeah. However, this wasn’t a power move — it was an empowering move.

A coach can be a very destructive or very cohesive force. (And I still believe too many coaches in travel ball are there for selfish reasons, not selfless ones.)

IF there was any calculation in this coach leaving....someone did the math wrong... Because the rippling negative fallout impacted an entire team, other coaches and parents.

Seems even IF plausible or reasonable Q&A after the incident....
* Negative impact is what happened from coach leaving.