[Hawks Coach]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach

Try this, then. If your interpretation is right, then after the head coach is ejected, the assistant should be allowed to stand, right? Whoever is calling the plays at the time is allowed to stand -- unless or until assessed a direct or indirect T. If that's true, then the assistant should be allowed to stand after the head coach is tossed. But s/he isn't. Why? Because s/he is not the head coach.

Now you are talking about a different situation. I am discussing a situation in which no wrong has occurred. You are discussing a situation in which a coach was ejected. I am saying that the rules are not written to cover the situation of a coach being late to the game, they are written to cover the ejection. So you go to a sensible solution in the first case, which is to allow the team to have a head coach at the start of the game and change when the true head coach arrives. In the second situation, you are punishing a coaching staff/team for an event which impacted the game.

Are we punishing the team by not allowing the assistant to stand? NO! Even tho the other coach is still allowed to stand? NO!

The rules were changed to go from not allowing coaches to stand to allowing them to stand. I have been seatbelted once in my entire coaching career, and I can tell you it changes how you interact with your team. Removing the right to stand (and thereby changing the dynamic of coach/team interaction) because a coach abused their privileges is one thing. Changing it because the head coach not being present at the start is an entirely different issue.

You don't understand why I'm reading the rule literally. And I don't understand how you can stretch it to include someone who is obviously not the head coach. There's one head coach per game per team. If there's more than one, then s/he isn't really the "head" coach, is s/he? The privilege to stand applies explicitly and solely to the head coach.

I have yet to see an explanation of what you accomplish by imposing this literal restriction. I can see the downside of making a coach sit. I cannot see the downside of having a surrogate head coach until the true head coach arrives, especially if you apply the rules so that if the surrogate is seatbelted for an act before or during the game, that seatbelt extends to the head coach. Indirects would be applied to the head coach. If you follow that guidance, where is the harm in allowing this to occur.

I'm sorry if you don't understand why. I don't understand why the jump stop is legal*. But it is, so that's how I call it. Maybe this rule is the same way.

I don't understand why the jump stop rule is precisely written as it is, but I can buy into the general principle of limiting motion without dribbling. Traveling could be three steps instead of two, as long as it is qual for both teams. The reasoning for the general restrictions on movement make sense, the particulars of these restrictions are just a matter of taste. I can clearly see a harm in allowing one team one set of rules for a jump stop and applying a different set to the toher team. On the other hand, I clearly do not see the harm in allowing an assistant to stand in the absence of the head coach.

* I understand the technicalities of the pivot foot that allow a jump stop. What I don't understand is why the rules committee continues to allow it to be legal. It seems like an obvious loophole to me. [/B]

[Edited by Hawks Coach on Jan 7th, 2004 at 03:37 PM]