No coaches on field?

[JRutledge]

Yes this is a new NF rule.

Peace

[UmpTTS43]

This is a misapplication of the rule. Just because the HC is restricted and/or ejected for his misdeeds, that does not mean the AC is restricted. The new rule says that if an assistant coach leaves his position to argue a call, he may be restricted to the bench or ejected. If that happens then the head coach is restricted to the bench.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Yes this is a new NF rule.

Peace

No, this is not the rule.

Head coaches are restricted when an assistant is dumped. Assistants are NOT restricted when a head coach is dumped.

The rule is in place in an attempt to make head coaches responsible for the behavior of their assistants.

[johnnyg08]

Yeah, putting kids on coaching duties when unrestricted adult(s) are in the dugout is a bad idea.

[ozzy6900]

FED 3-3-1g-6

any member of the coaching staff who was not the head coach (or designee) in 3-2-4 leaves the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box dispute a judgment call by an umpire,

FED 3-3-1g-6 Penalty

For violation of g (6), both the head coach and the offending coach shall be restricted to the dugout for the remainder of the game, or if the offense is judged severe enough, the umpire may eject the offender and restrict or eject the head coach. Any coach restricted to the bench shall ejected for further misconduct. A coach may leave the bench/dugout to attend to a player who becomes ill or injured.

[JRutledge]

So was I right or wrong?

Peace

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So was I right or wrong?

Peace

You were wrong:

FED 3-3-1g-6
any member of the coaching staff who was not the head coach (or designee) in 3-2-4 leaves the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box dispute a judgment call by an umpire,

When assistant is tossed or benched the HC is benched. When the HC is tossed or benched, the assistant is "promoted."

[UmpTTS43]

Just because an AC is dumped does not automatically restrict the HC to the bench. The AC must leave the dugout or his position in the coaches box to argue a call and then be restricted/ejected. If the AC is restricted/ejected while he is in the dugout or still in the box, there is no penalty for the HC.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

You were wrong:

FED 3-3-1g-6
any member of the coaching staff who was not the head coach (or designee) in 3-2-4 leaves the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box dispute a judgment call by an umpire,

When assistant is tossed or benched the HC is benched. When the HC is tossed or benched, the assistant is "promoted."

Here is the reason I asked the question. There is no such ruling that says this is not the intent of the rule. And in every other situation where a coach is restricted, all coaches are restricted to the dugout. So the position that johnnyg08 took would be wrong if you look at casebook plays that intend to restrict all coaches to the dugout if a coach violates the rule. Secondly, it is not automatic that you can restrict a coach anyway as the casebook says. There is no play that involves the actions of the head coach and what we do with the assistants, if we do anything with the assistants at all. And this rule is very similar to other rules in sports where the conduct of the assistants or people on the bench area are ultimately the responsibility of the head coach and if the head coach is not in control, the coaching staff is ultimately penalized. Even in one of the casebook plays, it gives the option to the umpire for the severity of the action before deciding if this penalty is appropriate.

Unfortunately for me I did not go to a live rules meeting and this was a question I had about this rule from the very beginning.

Peace

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

So was I right or wrong?

Hey, you posed the question.

Don't get all defensive if somebody answers it.

The rule is clear to me, and I don't need to even consider what they do in football or basketball to muddy things up. The new rule is simple and simply written. It has been clearly and concisely interpreted in the pre-season NFHS publications.

There's no need to guess at what you think they really meant. The rule and interpretations are about as unambiguous as they could possibly be.

The case play you cite (3.3.1T) has nothing to do with this new rule and nothing to do with anyone being "restricted to the bench". This case play is referring to participants being in their required areas during the game, NOT about anyone being "restricted to the bench" as a punitive measure for some misconduct.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Hey, you posed the question.

Don't get all defensive if somebody answers it.

Actually no one has answered the question that I am asking, because I am not asking the question only based on the rule, but the intent of the rule. And it is not being defensive to feel that there is a hole in the wording.

Originally Posted by BretMan

The rule is clear to me, and I don't need to even consider what they do in football or basketball to muddy things up. The new rule is simple and simply written. It has been clearly and concisely interpreted in the pre-season NFHS publications.

I do care what other sports do, because the NF has said as much when they create rules. All committees confer to make sure they are following a general philosophy. For example the NF concussion policy is the same across almost all their sports, not just a football only rule where this issue is often more prevalent. The different committees meet to make sure they follow similar rules and this rule in my opinion did not come from a baseball way of thinking as no other code has such a rule.

Originally Posted by BretMan

There's no need to guess at what you think they really meant. The rule and interpretations are about as unambiguous as they could possibly be.

The case play you cite (3.3.1T) has nothing to do with this new rule and nothing to do with anyone being "restricted to the bench". This case play is referring to participants being in their required areas during the game, NOT about anyone being "restricted to the bench" as a punitive measure for some misconduct.

If it is, then why are there questions about when a coach should be restricted?

We will just have to disagree on this. Case play 3.3.1T says to restrict the coaching staff to the dugout for an issue that is not related to an assistant coach arguing a judgment call. And this is a new case play that would not be there without this new rule. I did not suggest I was going to make a coach be restricted to the dugout for anything other than the basic wording, but it is clear to me that there was an attempt to use a philosophy from another sport (as there is no such rule from NCAA or MLB Baseball, but more consistent with basketball and football rules when it comes to conduct) and probably did not include situations where the rule would not obviously apply. And this was a discussion I had with people before the season and they had similar questions or concerns. The casebook in my opinion would have been clearer. And the fact someone suggested that an HC should be restricted in a situation where the rules might not completely suggest, only illustrates that confusion. I would not be surprised if next year there is a clarification or editorial change in the rule.

Peace