[missinglink]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Tony, David, and thumpferee,
All of you asked these questions so, I'll respond at one time.
If you really look closely, you will notice that 2-8-4 and 4-14-2, which govern a disqualified player, along with 5-8-4, the correctable error request, do NOT have the word HEAD in them. They use "a coach" or "the coach", not HEAD coach. So, an assistant coach can fulfill both of these needs and neither of them poses a problem to my stance.
On the other hand 5-8-3 specifically says "head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out."

Now, Tony does have a great point about the head coach who becomes ill or has to leave during the game due to an emergency. There is certainly no reason to penalize a team in this case. They have done nothing wrong. I can go with the spirit of the rule on that one.
However, when a head coach gets disqualified, it is because he or his team has done something improper. I don't have a problem with his team losing the ability to request a time-out from the bench as a result. Even if it happens in the first quarter as BITS points out. He should have behaved himself.

Upon further review, I think that it can be seen that my interpretation of this is not as unreasonable as some have made it out to be, yet I do realize that it is not the popular belief and I respect all of you who have challenged me to defend it rigorously.

Nevada Ref; it seems to me the strength of your argument comes from devotion to the exact wording of 5-8-3. However,I believe this rule evolved to its current reading that specified the "head coach" and is designed to prevent an erroneous timeout being granted to an overzealous or emotional assistant coach and never, never intended an expansion to prohibition of a future "coach in charge" requesting a timeout. Secondly, when the head coach is dq'd and there are more than one assistant on the bench, which is pretty typical in varsity games, my next question to the remaining staff is 'which one of you is the head coach?" It looks like this restrictive theory guided the outcome of this game vice the players determining it on their own merits.