Quote:
Originally posted by zebraman
I don't have this year's books yet. However, that POE makes it sound as if they are putting the onus on the coaches, not the officials. It sounds to me from that POE as if maybe they want the official to say, "hey coach, can you help me keep the players in the bench area and supply them with water rather than having them go get a drink at the fountain?"
Calling an immediate T (let's remember spirit and intent) with no warning for a player who walks over to get a drink of water might be a bit harsh don't you think?
I bet that if I had a conversation with that IHSA rules interpreter and pinned him down, he'd say, "yeah, asking the coach to help the officials out by keeping the players in the bench area might be better (especially the first time) than calling a sudden T to the unsuspecting player."
|
Z, the onus is on the coach to keep his players on the bench. However, if they don't, the onus now shifts on to us to call the "T" if our governing body tells us to. That's what the FED wants, and according to Grail, that's what the IHSA wants also. As for spirit and intent, for once the FED couldn't be more clearer with the spirit and intent that they want on this one by issuing this POE. It's pretty explicit. They think that it's a problem and they want it dealt with.
From a practical standpoint, my own personal opinion is that you'll see about as many "T"s called for this as were called for throwing a missed elbow when that action was still a "T". Iow, very few "T"s called with quite a lot more whispered "don't damn well do that"s being used.