Most have huge overinflated egos and like to try to intimidate coaches instead of doing what's best for the sport and listening to both sides. It's like hearing an official say "bottom man you gotta open up" when you question them about it you're told it's a judgement call. Well no it's not it's coaching. Not arguing that it's judgement just arguing the use of the judgement.

I've been officiating for 20 years. I know a lot of officials. They come from all walks of life, have different backgrounds, different skill sets. Some, true, are egomaniacs. But not very many that I've run into. My experience is they are just trying to officiate the match fairly. I have never heard of the "listening to both sides" requirement for officials, and I would not suggest it to anyone getting into the sport.

Your example about "open up bottom man" is coaching and is not good mechanics. We are taught to use generic terms not directed at either wrestler--"action, center, improve." Once a penalty has been assessed, there is nothing wrong with explaining why--"you are backing up" and that's preventative officating and only fair. I used to tell the wrestlers "stay in bounds" when on their feet and thought that was OK, but its not, its really coaching them so I stopped. They are free to go out of bounds, just so long as they get warned for stalling or pointed for fleeing if that's what it is.

I will say that inexperienced, not young always, officials can tend to be or get defensive. Particularly if they do have a bad match and the coach is all over them. It tends to snowball and the best coaches know that getting an official rattled is not going to make the day go better. Inexperienced coaches and inexperienced officials can end up being a real circus.

I can speak from experience that there are coaches who when they take you to the table you know you've misapplied the rule. And there are others that you just know are nuts.