2010 Rules Changes (NFHS Document)

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by JJ

Oh, my....so if an assistant leaves his coaching box to challenge a call, both he AND the head coach get restricted? Here come the problems! Who's going to be in the coaching boxes - kids? Oh, my!
I'm in the camp that says if that assistant violates, he gets dumped - not restricted. That way the head coach can still coach from a coaching box.
JMHO

JJ

If you're a head coach it sounds like it would be a good pre-season conversation to have w/ your assistants to make sure it doesn't happened. The rule appears to give more responsiblity to the head coach. This is a good rule.

[Rich]

Except it almost sounds like it's OK for the assistant to argue calls if they don't leave their position (dugout or coaching box). I guar-ON-tee it's not going to be interpreted that way by this umpire.

The best part is that even if an assistant coach gets ejected under this rule, the HC will also get restricted.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by JJ

Oh, my....so if an assistant leaves his coaching box to challenge a call, both he AND the head coach get restricted? Here come the problems! Who's going to be in the coaching boxes - kids? Oh, my!
I'm in the camp that says if that assistant violates, he gets dumped - not restricted. That way the head coach can still coach from a coaching box.
JMHO

Ok so you eject him; the head coach is still restricted to the dugout. Why do you care so much about who gets to coach a base?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JJ

Oh, my....so if an assistant leaves his coaching box to challenge a call, both he AND the head coach get restricted? Here come the problems! Who's going to be in the coaching boxes - kids? Oh, my!
I'm in the camp that says if that assistant violates, he gets dumped - not restricted. That way the head coach can still coach from a coaching box.
JMHO

JJ

Umm, no, he doesn't. Read it again.

This puts the responsibility square on the HC for his assistants. About damn time.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Umm, no, he doesn't. Read it again.

This puts the responsibility square on the HC for his assistants. About damn time.

Rule 3-3-1g6 prohibits any member of the coaching staff who is not the head coach from leaving "the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box to dispute a judgment call by an umpire." The penalty for this infraction is that both the head coach and the offending coach will be restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game. If severe enough, the umpire also has the authority to eject the offending coach and/or the head coach.

If any coach other than the head coach comes out on you, they both are restricted. I don't like that rule. Just get rid of the assistant, and it solves the problem just fine. This new rule had to be put in because of weak umpires letting assistants run amok, and not nipping their crap in the bud.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

If any coach other than the head coach comes out on you, they both are restricted. I don't like that rule. Just get rid of the assistant, and it solves the problem just fine. This new rule had to be put in because of weak umpires letting assistants run amok, and not nipping their crap in the bud.

I agree with you.

Didnt care for the dugout restriction either, dump the offender and get it over with. Message sent.....

[DonInKansas]

If severe enough, the umpire also has the authority to eject the offending coach and/or the head coach.

This is the only part I needed to hear. Dump the fool.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by umpjong

... Didnt care for the dugout restriction either, dump the offender and get it over with. Message sent.....

Watching a coach sit in the corner of the dugout silently moping like a child is often more satisfying (and more appropriate) than dumping him.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

This new rule had to be put in because of weak umpires letting assistants run amok, and not nipping their crap in the bud.

Where do you get your information that this is the reason that the rule was put in specifically for this reason? I think you're way off base on your assertion.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JJ

Oh, my....so if an assistant leaves his coaching box to challenge a call, both he AND the head coach get restricted? Here come the problems! Who's going to be in the coaching boxes - kids? Oh, my!
I'm in the camp that says if that assistant violates, he gets dumped - not restricted. That way the head coach can still coach from a coaching box.
JMHO

JJ

Is that not what already happens often? At least at first base there are a lot of players at that position. At least in my experience.

That being said, the ruling does not say that the umpire cannot dump the assistant. It just says that "if" they are restricted, the head coach must go to the bench. That is all.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Agreed. (As I read it.)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Where do you get your information that this is the reason that the rule was put in specifically for this reason? I think you're way off base on your assertion.

Don't just take a snipe at me, tell us what your opinion is. Why do you believe the rule was put in?

If assistants had been dealt with properly universally (hint here: ejected), this rule really wouldn't be necessary. Not that I think it's necessary now.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Don't just take a snipe at me, tell us what your opinion is. Why do you believe the rule was put in?

If assistants had been dealt with properly universally (hint here: ejected), this rule really wouldn't be necessary. Not that I think it's necessary now.

Again, let me be clear. It was your bold statement. I just asked where you got your information from. I believe FED has taken sportsmanship up a notch. Rules aren't made because an umpire is weak. There has to be a better reason than what you suggest.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

There has to be a better reason than what you suggest.

Pretty sure it isn't to take "sportsmanship up a notch." That's not what the memo said. Here is what it said, and is more in line with what I was saying, which is that umpires have been lax in dealing with unruly assistants. Which is weak.

The intention of this change is to cut down on the disruptive and counterproductive behavior of assistant coaches. It also reinforces to head coaches that they are responsible for their staff and players.

"The committee found that assistant coaches were taking license with their roles and becoming disruptive," Hopkins said. "By
doing that, they're sending the wrong message to their players. It's one thing to ask the official for a clarification, but it's another to challenge and charge an umpire. We cannot and will not allow that."

Sounds like some umpires have let behavior slide and did not send the proper message.

[DonInKansas]

If sportsmanship had been taken up a notch, rules like this would not be neccessary.