![]() |
|
|
|||
So was I right or wrong?
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
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." |
|
|||
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.
|
|
|||
Quote:
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
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
What orifice are you pulling this from? There is NO time where all coaches are restricted for the actions of one.
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?" |
|
|||
Quote:
![]() Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
no, i know what you're getting at...but if all are restricted, can the team put a player in the 3B coaching box?...sounds like a gong show to me.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again |
|
|||
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Yes, I did. Obviously more than you have, too.
__________________
"I don't think I'm very happy. I always fall asleep to the sound of my own screams...and then I always get woken up to the sound of my own screams. Do you think I'm unhappy?" |
|
|||
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
![]()
Jeff,
Quote:
Thanks. John
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all. |
|
|||
Quote:
I do think the rule is unclear on some levels, but it is clear to me the NF wanted this penalty to be severe so the HC could prevent assistants from getting out of hand. Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) |
|
|||
Quote:
Tough it out big guy, you were wrong. Move on. |
|
|||
Quote:
This is like many new rules where the intent is one thing, but what they put in writing is another. The problem is people like you want everything to be about right and wrong and do not want to acknowledge that if things were clear, someone (not me BTW) would not have suggested that a head coach would have been restricted for something that the interpretations did not address. All the NF could have done in this situation was create a play where it was clear the assistant coach is not under their jurisdiction and they would not be restricted to the dugout and all of this would be clearer. Previously when a coach was restricted it was very clear what a coach could and could not do. In this case they are making the head coach responsible, but not really responsible if they do not fit these very narrow standards. Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010) Last edited by JRutledge; Mon Apr 19, 2010 at 10:21pm. |
|
|||
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. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Coaches on field- live ball foul? | bossman72 | Football | 6 | Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:34pm |
Coaches on the field | Ran.D | Softball | 2 | Tue May 09, 2006 09:05am |
Coaches on the field during a game | alabamabluezebra | Football | 9 | Wed Aug 24, 2005 07:09am |
Field goal attempts that hit the cameras on field goal posts | Barney72 | Football | 3 | Tue Oct 12, 2004 12:21pm |
Coaches on the Field | Ed Hickland | Football | 32 | Wed Dec 18, 2002 02:11pm |