Quote:
Originally Posted by Camron Rust
I'll tell my supervisor that the assistant was nothing but helpful and beneficial to the situation and had been nothing but that the entire game and it would have been completely against the spirit of the rule to have issued a T. And I'm pretty sure he'd agree with me.
|
Here’s what the NFHS wrote about the rule change:
Quote:
While the head coach and his/her assistants must continue to ensure that players remain on the bench during a fight, the committee agreed that the presence of the head coach on the court could be instrumental in preventing the situation from escalating, and the coach also could assist game officials in controlling the situation.
“By removing the requirement of the head coach being beckoned onto the floor by the officials, it should result in a more expedient resolution of the situation and restoration of order,” said Theresia Wynns, NFHS director of sports and officials education. “The change also will allow the officials a greater opportunity to assess appropriate penalties by being able to observe the situation because of the increased assistance the head coach(es) will provide by their presence.”
|
What I take from this is the idea is to deal with the chaos on the court while keeping other people – mainly players – off the court. If an assistant comes on the court that’s one less person to keep an eye on the other bench personnel. Bad idea.
The “it’s not the spirit of the rule” thought process in this situation explains why coaches get upset with us and say we’re not consistent from game to game or crew to crew. The rule is there and so is the interpretation. There’s nothing in there that says “if an assistant comes onto the court and is a peacemaker he/she can remain in the game.” If we forget it that’s one thing but if we know what it is and decide not to enforce it because we don’t want to be the bad guy that’s where problems start. The coaches know the rule and even if they don’t, that’s not my problem.