[FMadera]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

So, in your example, 8 incorrect reviews does not result in 8 UD's and it's corresponding penalty; 8 incorrect reviews results in either the coach having to burn his remain time outs and when he no longer has a time out left, then LOR/point.

It is a de factor UD, since the penalty is a timeout, and in the absence of a remainint timeout, yes, a loss of rally. Just like a UD. Perhaps the terminology wasn't perfect, but the penalty is the same.

It seems unreasonable and flies int the face of common sense that the rules permit a coach to make repeated challenges of the officials'' rulings.

Then please cite a rule that limits the number of times a coach may use this ability to challenge? Other than taking the time to review, the coach isn't gaining an advantage (the coach would be reviewing the decision with the officials, not coaching his team like a regular timeout). If a coach is willing to go that length and risk a point each time (thereby making it more difficult for his team to win), then it is entirely within their right to do so, whether an official likes it or not.

So, when I commented on what to do with a coach who continually requests reviews and he consistently does not prevail, there is, by rule, a mechanism to deal with that type of situation:
1. An assessment of UD (in addition to LOR/point for the unsuccessful challenge). UD does not only apply to the listed violations ("Unnecessary delay includes, but is not limited to when:") or (and probably more appropriate)

2. The administration of a yellow or red card to the coach (in addition to the LOR/point for the unsuccessful challenge). 12-2-8l specifically addresses this situation and permits this penalty.

I think that 8 unsuccessful challenges goes beyond simply assessing the LOR/point; there is more to be addressed. A coach who does something like that is making a mockery of the game, and of the officials who permit it to continue.

Of course this is all just .02 from a newer official.

I threw the number 8 out here just as a random number. But to the point...you're actually going to assess an additional penalty for something that (a) the NFHS has not limited usage of whatsoever, and (b) there is already a penalty listed?

If a coach is wrong the first 3 times, and challenges a 4th time, are you going to deny the opportunity to challenge if he's right? Or are you going to card him only if he's wrong, thereby assessing a penalty that is above and beyond the specific penalty listed for the legal (albeit annoying) challenge.

And seriously, has anyone had more than one review in a match anyway? In over 3000 matches I've worked, I've had exactly two protests, none of them in NFHS. I really don't see this as being an issue, but the fact is, there is no limit in the rules to how many times a review can be requested.

The point is, no matter how annoying you find the reviews to be, no matter how often it's requested, so long as it's a review of an incorrect rule application (not a review of judgment), it's allowable, with the applicable penalty (and *only* that penalty) to be assessed if the coach is wrong. Anything assessed beyond that is incorrect (and technically, grounds for review in and of itself).

Annoying and inconvenient is not necessarily grounds for penalty.