No coaches on field?
 

Head coach argues with PU and gets restricted to dugout. Before returning to dugout he continues to argue and gets tossed. Next inning when asst. coaches go to take positions at first and third. PU won't allow Assts to coach bases. They are told because they are restricted to dugout they can't coach bases but can allow players to coach the bases. Explaination was this is a new NFHS rule. Is this correct? This was a 13U travel team playing NFHS rules.

Yes this is a new NF rule.

Peace

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

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

What orifice are you pulling this from? There is NO time where all coaches are restricted for the actions of one.

Jeff,

Could you please clarify? I haven't the foggiest idea of what situations you are referring to or where I would find a supporting cite.

Thanks.

John

Well you can look at all the casebook plays under 3.3.1 and it is clear that the rule makes it clear that the actions of an assistant can restrict a HC to the dugout. And the intent of the rule is to make the HC restricted and not allow a coach to be on the field if such action is taken under this new rule. And there are people that have said that "It would not be a good thing to have a coach not on the field" when the rule is clear that is the result if this rule is violated.

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

You must did not read the casebook. ;)

Peace

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.