Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
During a rally, while Team A is playing the ball near the net, a ball rolls onto Team A's side of the court, near the endline. The ball is clearly not interfering with the play. Several Team A substitutes rush onto the court to retrieve the ball. Play continues and Team A wins the rally.
Team B coach is NOT happy. He wants a sanction for the substitutes coming onto the court and distracting his team during play. He calls a time-out to talk to me. The conversation took almost the entire time-out. The abridged version went something like this:
Coach: Doesn't the rule say that the subs have to stay in the bench area?
Me: Yes, Coach, it does.
Coach: Were their subs on the court?
Me: Yes, Coach, they were.
Coach: And you didn't blow the whistle, did you?
Me: I didn't.
Coach: So you didn't enforce the rule, did you?
Me: Would you like to protest the rule enforcement, Coach?
Coach: NO, I don't want to protest.
[Pause]
Coach: But that is the rule, isn't it?!?
Me: Yes, Coach, it is. Would you like to protest?
Coach: NO, I don't want to protest. I'm done talking to you.
Me: [Shrug]
So, two questions:
1) Should there have been a sanction for players leaving the bench area to retrieve the ball?
2) Normally, we wouldn't let a conversation like this last for a whole minute. But I felt that since he was burning his own time-out, I would stay there and let him get his frustration out. My partner disagreed. Is it ok to talk to the coach for his whole time-out?
|
1) If the ball caused players from the bench to come on the court, you could certainly make a case that the ball interfered, in theory. I probably would have stopped play, and if the team complained, I would say a replay is better than saying we have 7-8 players on the court.
2) If that's how the coach wants to spend the timeout, it's not like he's delaying resumption of play. I tend to listen longer if the question is potentially protestable.