|
There are a couple solid suggestions here and a couple really hairbrained ones IMO. #4 could be the dumbest rule suggestion I've ever heard for reasons I won't get into. #s 8, 12 and 17 simply make sense and we should adopt them. I don't like 6, 11, 13 or 19.
The one I want to support but will take some flack for it is #1. In California, we allow a coaches box, but it is so small that it becomes hard to enforce. It has led to a mentality that "As long as he's coaching, he can wander a bit." Additionally, because the box is so small it forces officials to be more attentive to enforce it, and doing so can lead to the impression of being overly officious (in other words, marking with tape and reminding the coach to stay there) and can lead to a needlessly contentious relationship between coaches and officials. I think expanding the coaches box will allow coaches to better coach their players and it will lead to better communication with us. The one caveat is that I think the coach's box priviledges should only be extended to HCs at the varsity level. Varsity coaches deserve that consideration because the expectation is that they're more experienced and can make responsible use of the box, and that varsity officials have the communication skills to better manage the bench. At the subvarsity level, I don't see a need for any coach's box. In short, I think an expanded coaches box will be like the tableside mechanic and facilitate better communication between officials and coaches and allow both of us to better do our jobs.
|