Exactly. I vaguely recall somebody saying something similar in post #10.
I've started to say this a few times, but never actually posted it. But here goes...
The rules acknowledge the role of head coach. The rules place some restrictions upon the person acting in this role. Beyond that, however, the rules are silent regarding this role and the person filling it.
I understand that silence to mean that details left unspecified are outside the scope of the rules, and outside our jurisdiction. In other words, somebody else gets to make those decisions, and gets to make whatever additional rules regarding the person or the position that the decision maker, or decision making body, deems appropriate.
There are other cases like this in the rules. The rules acknowledge the notion of eligibility (e.g., definition of team member) but do not define it. The rules acknowledge the role of game management/home management/host management, a role with certain specified responsibilities (e.g., designating each team's bench, reasonable responsibility for spectator behavior), but which otherwise remains undefined.
We have no problem excusing ourselves from involvement in player eligibility. We would not consider it our place to decide who fills the role of game management (with one clearly-defined exception specified by rule, adding an additional role to an existing role, which we had no part in determining who fills). So I find it puzzling that some of us want to grant ourselves a voice, even a veto, in any decision regarding who can or cannot be the head coach if the current head coach is ejected. Or suggesting we go outside the rules to reduce or eliminate privileges granted to the person filling that role.
Talk about making stuff up as we go along...
