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.

That could have happened with or without this new rule. If a coach was restricted (and there were no other adult coaches present) than the coach could not be on the field. And I have seen players used as base coaches often in my years and even at third base.

Peace

The gymanastics and gyrations you go through to try to avoid being wrong are incredible.

Tough it out big guy, you were wrong. Move on.

I am a multiple sport official. This rule came from other sports (basketball and football have similar rules). In basketball the head coach is the only person that has the coaching box privileged. Once those privileges are lost, no one can use them. In football, if anyone violates the sideline rules, all penalties goes toward the head coach and can result in ejection even if the head coach is not directly responsible for the specific penalized act. Most baseball coaches I know are coaches from other sports. They tend to use other sports as their way of understanding other rules. And I am waiting for a coach a restriction when the rules are not explicit for such thing at this time. And if that was the case, then the interpretations should make it clear like they do in other aspects when this rule does not apply. Right now they claim mostly when it applies and even in one case play the situation is not dealing directly with an argument, but requires everyone to be restricted to the dugout (e.g. 3.3.1 Situation T).

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Could you please restate the question, because I think it's been (correctly) answered.



No, it doesn't. It says to eject (not restrict) the offender (not the coaching staff).

It's been answered. You either don't like the answer, don't understand the answer or are still trying to dance yourt way out of being wrong.


Because you're not the only one who was wrong.

Now you're making stuff up. It does not say that.

Actually the NF has not answered the question. That was the only group that can answer the question and it is not in their literature that I have seen. Not sure what that has to do with liking the answer. I know this sometimes disappoints many, but the people here are not the end all or the final say on rulings. But you knew that right?


So you cannot raise a question of what the intent of the rules are? I will remember that next time any rule is developed and the next year they change the wording to "clarify" what they meant. It happens every year in just about every sport I am associated with and why these boards often exist in the first place. But then again, we do not want to upset you.

Whatever you say man. ;)

Peace

Yes, I did. Obviously more than you have, too.

Yep. :D

Peace

Mr. Rutledge, you have outdone yourself. Both Bob Jenkins and I have pointed out accurately they you misquoted a situation in your feeble attempt to appear justifed in your incorrect view.

And when caught, undeniably, misrerpresenting a written situation that is available for all to see, you respond with:

Had you any crediblity left, it is gone.

This is the baseball board and honestly I did not expect much of a serious conversation with this. Also unlike you I actually know Bob Jenkins and we do not agree on everything. Does not mean anything as most people I know do not agree on everything either. Also this is a discussion board, not a place I am trying to gain credibility. If it is, then I will stop officiating all together if I need that credibility here.

You continue with your opinions or lack of ability to see the bigger picture. I will not have to work with you so it really does not matter either way now does it? ;)

Peace

Try reading this very slowly. This has NOTHING to do with agreeing with Bob Jenkins. What has been pointed out is that you misquoted, or misrepresented, or lied about how a situation was worded. It doesn't matter that it was Bob or me or Elmer Fudd who pointed this out.

This is not opinion. It is verifiable. Anyone can look up the situation and then read what you claimed it said (said, not meant) and it will be clear that you are wrong.

Be a man.

After reading through all of the points made under 3.3.1 (SITUATIONS A - RR) I think we can come to the following conclusions for the 2010 season:

1. HC's or AC's can be restricted or ejected, and that each occurrence must be judged on its own merit
2. The AC and HC are both restricted if the AC leaves his position to argue a judgment call
3. The intent of this ruling is to keep the AC's from arguing judgment calls
3. The purpose of this rule is to make the HC culpable for managing the actions of the AC's
4. None of the case plays for baseball suggest, directly or indirectly, that AC's are ever restricted after the HC is restricted and/or ejected

As for deciphering what or why the NFHS or state associations actually means to say in the writing of the new rules. I leave that to the 2011 clarifications. For now I will go with was was clearly written in the book, the pubs, and stated at the rules interpretations meeting. For what that is read points 1 - 4 above.

If it has nothing to do with Bob, why did you bring him up? Last time I checked I did not ask Bob’s opinion. Seriously, if you do not want something to be about something, you do not bring up the issue or person.

Try reading this slowly. I believe that the intent of the rule was to restrict actions above what the plays suggest. Now you do not have to believe that, but that is what I think and why I raised the issue. If you do not want to accept that, then keep talking about it over and over and over again here. But I stand by what I feel and feel this is no different than other rules where they wanted to take action on something, but did not make it clear across the board when and how this might be applied. Because all they had to do is create a play that said that the HC would not be restricted if they were thrown out. But all they did was create about 4 plays that said the same thing and made no distinction between what might be the penalty if there is a problem with the head coach. And the very reason this issue has come up more than once already and most people walk away debating.

And I knew I could not have this discussion with baseball umpires as usual. There were two rules brought up in football season this past year and those individuals dissected, debated, argued over the intent or the reasons for one very poorly written rule and another rule that was somewhat controversial. But hey, cannot do that here, maybe that is why many like yourself cannot handle a coach debating with you and throwing everyone out is a badge of honor. Keep up the good work.

Peace

Yawn. Lock 'er down, please.

Oh, my God, yes, please lock it down. Looking inside of Rutledge's concept of logic is a frightening.

Rut: Situation X says this.
Bob: No it doesn't.
Rut: Let's just agree to disagree.
MU: No room for disagreement. It either says what you say or it doesn't and like Bob said, it doesn't.
Rut: I'm used to disagree with Bob.
MU: But you are denying the truth of what the situation says, not disagreeing with Bob.
Rut: Well if it's not about Bob, what is it about?
MU: Someone shoot me in the face, please.


My dear Mr. Rutledge...get some help. Thankfully, I've retired but I know of some colleagues in the Chicago area that could help you.

I used to bother about that. But the ignore list is just so much less stressful, you know? ;)

Meanwhile, back at the original post ...
Just to summarize so everybody is clear ... an ejection/restriction of a HC has no bearing on any ACs.

If an AC leaves their position or dugout to argue a call, eject the AC and restrict the HC. That would not preclude a different AC from occupying a coaches' box, correct?

There's no requirement that either of the coaches' boxes be occupied by a coach. They may be occupied by players, non-restricted/ejected coaches or left empty.

Correct.

Not correct. You MAY choose to restrict the AC, which also REQUIRES restriction of the head-coach. Correct: a different AC may then occupy the coaches box vacated by the restricted/ejected AC or HC.

Correct.

Right. Good catch. (I wish you'd knew what I meant instead of what I said.) :D

Quote: "I believe that the intent of the rule was to restrict actions above what the plays suggest"

May I suggest that you contact your State Rules Committee and get clarification on this issue. As umpires, we must be careful when enforcing rules based on what we believe the "intent" to be is. And when we come to certain rules, as the one which you have mentioned, we ask those in charge to clarify since this forum has not served that purpose for you.

Good luck...

You know, I did a cut & paste from the 2010 FED book so you could all read the rule and the penalty. You are supposed to be umpires and most of you HS umpires. I cannot believe how plain English can be debated so.

People, if you do not understand this rule, this rule that for once the FED put in plain English, don't debate it. Stop umpiring HS ball, turn in your uniforms and find another hobby that you can screw up! :mad:

Finis

I think Illinois would survive the loss.