Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Refneck
Sorry, I didn't state in my earlier post that I did seat the coach, which he understood. My point was that it's one of those rule situations where the letter of the rule just doesn't feel right, that's all. I wish we could use the intent of rules more than just words on the page when that makes the most sense for the context of that game.
I guess I don't like being such a robot when I referee, others may find that easier, opinions vary.
|
You are still missing the point. I'm trying to tell you that seat-belting the coach in these cases
IS the intent of the NFHS. That body knew exactly what it was doing when it wrote the rulings. Those folks
WANT the coach to lose the box. This makes coaches control their kids more throughout the game. You seem to be failing to comprehend that.
Here's yet another recent NFHS interp explicitly stating their intent:
2006-07 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 4: The horn sounds to end the third quarter. As the teams are heading to their respective benches, team members A1 and B1 verbally taunt one another. RULING: Double technical foul charged to A1 and B1. During the intermission between quarters, all team members are bench personnel. Both head coaches are indirectly charged with technical fouls and lose their coaching box privileges. Play will resume at the point of interruption, which is an alternating-possession arrow throw-in to begin the fourth quarter. (4-34-2; 10-4-1c Penalty)