The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 18, 2010, 07:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 44
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 18, 2010, 07:27pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,548
Yes this is a new NF rule.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 18, 2010, 07:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 425
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 18, 2010, 08:14pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NY state
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRutledge View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 18, 2010, 09:23pm
Stop staring at me swan.
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,974
Yeah, putting kids on coaching duties when unrestricted adult(s) are in the dugout is a bad idea.
__________________
It's like Deja Vu all over again
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 10:55am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
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.
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Apr 19, 2010, 02:32pm
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,548
So was I right or wrong?

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 20, 2010, 01:41pm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 391
Meanwhile, back at the original post ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by frozenrope22 View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 20, 2010, 01:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioBlue View Post
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.
Correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioBlue View Post
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?
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RadioBlue View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 20, 2010, 02:04pm
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by cviverito View Post
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.
Right. Good catch. (I wish you'd knew what I meant instead of what I said.)
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 20, 2010, 03:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 91
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...
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Apr 20, 2010, 07:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 2,439
Angry

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!

Finis
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out!
Ozzy
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1