I get the logic. If anyone comes off the bench during a fight, it's a flagrant T regardless of what they may say. There is an exception for the HC to come out and assist with breaking up the fight. If the coach does or says anything that might inflame the situation, I could see running him.

If he actually breaks up the fight first, then says something on the way back, maybe not. If he mouths off and then proceeds to break up the fight, there's a decision to be made.

Hawkeyes go 12-0 and now you're full of opinions.

Ejections? On the high school level, why wouldn't we just eject both of H's players or at least H3?
Doubtful we hear anything from V's coach if an official comes up tossing one or both players. Can't say I blame the V coach for taking a "T" in that situation.
My kid just got the Bogart treatment from two players during a dead ball?
:(

Damned straight.

I'm interested in what others may think of a T here. While I'm an advocate of not holding them back, this is a situation where I may just let it go -- depending how/what the coach says.

With how horrible the sportsmanship was from the two ejected players I'd have to imagine something happened before their shoves.

Seems like I would have to have something good to have a T here. If he's just protective over his players and voices he think I missed something previously...

Both players are gone (H2 and H3) without hesitation.

We don't "come up tossing" until the fight is over. We have more important things to do during the scrum, and the coach should know as much. If either H2 or H3 don't get tossed, then the coach has a gripe.

Either way, the coach's seatbelt would be the definition of grace. He's lucky to stick around.

I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but I get tired of people giving excuses to adults because "they're just (insert sports cliche here)." They're adults, and the coach needs to focus on preventing this thing from getting worse. By blaming the refs on his way out, he's doing the exact opposite.

I agree, but why would the coach care about getting tossed after his kid was attacked? Once that minor was attacked a second time... those officials are lucky some over-zealous parent didn't come flying out of the stands. May sound crazy, but if those kids don't get ejected and something bad happens to V2... good luck getting your name off that law suit is you're in that officiating crew.

I'm not following how this thread has transformed from talking about officials screwing up an enforcement to talking about lawsuits. :confused:

On another note, "protecting his players" is one of the lamest, most overused excuses for childish behavior from coaches. We're expected to act like adults, so should the coaches be.

Why are the officials lucky? What lawsuit? Are you taking the V coach at his word that the officials caused H2 and H3 to be stupid? Do you think they could/should have been able to prevent H3's stupidity? I'm picturing him doing it as the whistle is blowing for H2. Both officials likely have their whistles out of the mouths at this point, so the whistle is going to take a second.

I'm don't care if the coach cares, to be honest. My job is to regain control of a situation that's spiraling at this point and the coach is now part of the problem. I've got three problems (H2, H3, and V Coach), I'm inclined to remove all three.

Actually, 1-11 would only be required to meet those parameters.

One clarification: there was no mention of Coach H losing the coaching box, as H-2 and H-3 were apparently still deemed to be players and not bench personnel. At what instant does bench personnel start? At the whistle when the time out is granted? At "Start the clock, please," to the timekeeper? Something else?

Players are still players during a timeout. Only during intermissions do they become bench personnel.

With how horrible the sportsmanship was from the two ejected players I'd have to imagine something happened before their shoves.

Seems like I would have to have something good to have a T here. If he's just protective over his players and voices he think I missed something previously...[/QUOTE]

I agree!

Just to be clear, it wasn't the ejected players' coach that was T'd as your post implied, it was the visiting coach...the one whose player was shoved.

We are discussing two separate issues here - one is a matter of rule, the other a matter of judgement.

The question the OP originally posed was if the penalties for the T's were administered correctly by rule, and I agree with numerous others that they were not.

The second issue that has evolved in the discussion here is with the T on the visiting coach (note that the OP did not question the T on the VC, just how the penalties were administered). This is a matter of severity of conduct as judged by the game officials - it's one of those HTBT situations.....

If the game officials judged the coach's comments as worthy of a T, I have no problem with that. As to whether it was worthy of a flagrant T and ejection, that's another judgement they have to make based on the situation.

Regardless of what might have prompted a coach's unsportsmanlike action, his conduct stands on it's own and you penalize accordingly.

It's easy to be an "arm chair" official with 20/20 hindsight, but in reality only the game officials present have the immediate knowledge to make those judgements.

My post implied the V coach was the one we're talking about. Not sure what you're talking about.

As for the original post, I agree with how the officials dealt with everything up to the administering of the calls.

I'm not debating the initial call, but wondering what people are letting fly here from the VC. Since specifics weren't discussed from the OP, I figured it would've be an interesting topic.