Ugly mess of a situation

[Altor]

The OP doesn't specify that V-HC was beckoned to the court to help. Since he shot his mouth off, would anybody consider giving him a flagrant T? Or, since H-HC came off the bench too, does V-HC get a reprieve on this?

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Altor

The OP doesn't specify that V-HC was beckoned to the court to help. Since he shot his mouth off, would anybody consider giving him a flagrant T? Or, since H-HC came off the bench too, does V-HC get a reprieve on this?

Head coach is not required to be beckoned. This has been the rule for a few years now.

[Altor]

Fair enough. So, since he may enter to prevent the escalation of a possible fight and he decided to run his mouth as well, do you run him?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Altor

Fair enough. So, since he may enter to prevent the escalation of a possible fight and he decided to run his mouth as well, do you run him?

So you're calling flagrant technical on the visiting coach because he shot off his mouth?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So you're calling flagrant technical on the visiting coach because he shot off his mouth?

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

Damned straight.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dad

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...

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.

[Refhoop]

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!

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by Dad

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...

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Altor

The OP doesn't specify that V-HC was beckoned to the court to help. Since he shot his mouth off, would anybody consider giving him a flagrant T? Or, since H-HC came off the bench too, does V-HC get a reprieve on this?

Either or both HCs can come off the bench to prevent a fight from breaking out or to help keep it from escalating. New rule last year; this is not a factor here at all.

As for shooting his mouth off in such a way that was soooo vulgar as to warrant a flagrant T, that's a judgment call and a "had to be there" kind of thing. It would take a lot for me.

Now of course if a non-flagrant T doesn't correct the observed behavioral issues, there is another way to eject the coach if necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk