Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
And I agree with that too, BITS.
But the point still is......
According to OHSAA rules(and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) where MTD Sr. is from, if you eject a coach:
1) You have to write up an ejection report and submit it to the coach's school and OHSAA within 48 hours.
2) You also have to speak to the coach's principal about the ejection by the first school day following the ejection.
3) The coach gets an automatic 2-game suspension and a $100 fine, and iirc they have to take a behavior course also.
So you'd better believe that if a coach was issued a "T" like MTD suggests, and that "T" ended up with the ejection of the coach, the coach would sureasheck be looking into making sure that the correct rule was used. It sureasheck ain't that difficult then to find out there IS a definitive case play covering the situation. And with Ohio being a state where the coaches already have an inordinate amount of power, guess what's gonna happen to the official that screwed up the call.
You make up your own rules, you get what you deserve.
|
JR:
You are correct with the OhioHSAA ramifications. BUT, (1) per both NFHS and NCAA rules, not only can a team be charged with a TF for delay of game, so can an individual (player or coach) can be charged with a TF for committing a delay of game infraction when the situation warrants it. AND, (2), when the HC takes it upon himself to order his players not to occupy the first two lanes spaces, the HC is the one that is delaying the game at this point and can be charged with a TF for delaying the game.
Let us return to 2009-10 NFHS Casebook Play 10.1.5 Situation C(b). The Ruling references 2009-10 NFHS R4-S47 which does not apply. Therefore, by rule, B1 and B2 should have both been charged with a TF for delay of game per NFHS R10-S3-A5, which states:
"A player shall not delay the game by acts
such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in
play.
b. Failing when in possession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer
official when a whistle blows.
c. The free thrower fails to be in the free-throw semicircle when the official is ready to administer the free throw unless the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect following a time-out or intermission.
d. Repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10."
I have highlighted the words "such as" in
red because they mean that actions other that the four listed can be an infrations of NFHS R10-S3-A5.
The same logic within NFHS R10-S3-A5 is applied to NFHS R10-S4-A1, which states:
"Bench personnel, including the head coach, shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes,
but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:
a. Disrespectfully addressing an official.
b. Attempting to influence an official’s decision.
c. Using profane or inappropriate language or obscene gestures.
d. Disrespectfully addressing, baiting or taunting an opponent.
NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.
e. Objecting to an official’s decision by rising from the bench or using
gestures.
f. Inciting undesirable crowd reactions.
g. Being charged with fighting.
h. Removing the jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the
playing area."
And yes, I charged a HC with a TF about five years ago for the exact same actions of the HC in the OP. It was his second TF of the game and he was ejected, but the $100 fine and the required anger management course were not added to the penalty until two years ago. It should be noted that the coach must pay the fine with his own personal check.
And one final comment regarding the NFHS Casebook Play which you referenced, this is another example of the people who make these rulings do not have the knowlege of the rules to apply the correct rule.
MTD, Sr.
P.S. Both Tom Watson and Tiger Woods have had a tough day on the links and therefore I have thrown myself into this post.