2010 Rules Changes (NFHS Document)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Thanks Tee. I can't wait to see the assistant coaches squirm and try to restrain themselves. Should be a riot!

[Ump153]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Thanks Tee. I can't wait to see the assistant coaches squirm and try to restrain themselves. Should be a riot!

I don't see this as an improvement. Coaches and AD's will be expecting benchings instead of the ejections they get now.

Benchings are bullsh!t.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Ump153

I don't see this as an improvement. Coaches and AD's will be expecting benchings instead of the ejections they get now.

Benchings are bullsh!t.

They can expect whatever they want. I've never one single time in all the many HS games I've worked, ever restricted a coach to the bench, even when the option was available. I'm not about to start now. If an assistant comes out on me and doesn't leave immediately when told, he's a done Tom turkey, just like always!

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

If an assistant comes out on me and doesn't leave immediately when told, he's a done Tom turkey, just like always!

Even if he does leave immediately he would be restricted to the dugout.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Ump153

I don't see this as an improvement. Coaches and AD's will be expecting benchings instead of the ejections they get now.

Benchings are bullsh!t.

But sometimes, it is nice to see them have to sit there quietly because of the "adult supervision" rule of the FED! They know that if they screw up again, they are ejected and the game has to end!

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

But sometimes, it is nice to see them have to sit there quietly because of the "adult supervision" rule of the FED! They know that if they screw up again, they are ejected and the game has to end!

Well maybe I'll give being "kinder and gentler" a try this coming season!





NOT!!!!

[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

[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.

[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.)

[JJ]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

...and this has what to do with my post? The intended subject of my post was expressing some disapproval at BOTH coaches being restricted - that perhaps ejecting the assistant would effect his removal from the scene and facilitate the head coach doing his own job on the field, from the field.

JJ