To T or not to T; that is the question?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dad

There is such a thing in the example he gave. Here ya go:

Immediately following a goal or free throw by Team A, A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and A2 subsequently throws the ball through A's basket. RULING: The following procedure has been adopted to handle this specific situations if it is recognized before the opponents gain control or before the next throw-in begins: A) Tech B) delay of game warning c/d/e) blah blah blah. Comment: If there is no doubt the throw-in was a result of confusion, the entire procedure would be follow except the tech. If it's the second delay-of-game there is a tech.

Yep, that's the scoring team interfering with the throw in. Not at all related to the OP here. The OP does not even remotely fit with the four designated options for DOG.

DOG is not a catch-all to be used anytime a team confuses or annoys the officials. It cannot, by rule, be used for this situation. That's what Smitty meant by "there's no such DOG".

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

So do you hit him up if he's standing just outside the box? Honestly, around here this isn't much of an issue and I don't pay enough attention to coaches to see if there foot is on the line. If I can tell I make it clear I would really appreciate if they'd stay in the box because I don't want to have to call a stupid technical. I've also never called one, but that's not to say one wasn't called on a game I was on.


No, it says he's acting as if there's a timeout AND mildly celebrating the made basket. He's not out high fiving his shooter, he thought there was a TO.

If the other coach asks, I'll give him the "I'd do the same for you" and add that if he had interfered with play, I would have called it. His confusion over there being a TO doesn't justify anything for me. What confusion? There was none from what I read in the OP. Now if he asked for a TO and my partner said okay and didn't blow his whistle that's different. Here the coach is just being dumb and that's not reason enough for me to pass.

Th

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

Yep, that's the scoring team interfering with the throw in. Not at all related to the OP here. The OP does not even remotely fit with the four designated options for DOG.

DOG is not a catch-all to be used anytime a team confuses or annoys the officials. It cannot, by rule, be used for this situation. That's what Smitty meant by "there's no such DOG".

I'll finish here since we've all stopped reading posts and just cherry-picked what we want to harp on. I never said anything about a DOG warning to the OP. I posted the case book play someone was referring to and I even QUOTED what they said about not giving the confused kid a T. The case book says confused or not it's DOG. Again, NOTHING to do with the OP and I was replying to someone's reference of the play.

Not enforcing coaching box rules is probably going to lead to a rule change I don't want to see. Whether it's not giving us a judgement call anymore or not allowing coaches to call a TO. Neither of which I personally like.

I'm sure someone like you or Rich could pass on this and it'd be okay. But having it a basis of what we can and can't pass on, in my mind, will make NFHS make a rule so officials can't screw it up. This I don't want to see.

[Hugh Refner]

Originally Posted by Smitty

But if we started giving out T's every time the coach steps out of the box, we'd have a lot of games with coaches sitting in their chair for 31 minutes.

And your point?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

And your point?

My point, if you read my entire post, is that we aren't as strict as that in my area so we would end up giving a T in he first minute of the game if we cared about the coaches taking a step out of their box. We deal with it when the coach complains and is out of his/her box. Or if they are very far out of the box. But we don't mark the box and we certainly don't T up a coach because they are a foot or two out of it and coaching.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Delay of game warning? There is no such DOG. In my neck of the woods, we are fairly lax with the coaching box. So I get it if you are in a zero tolerance zone. But if we started giving out T's every time the coach steps out of the box, we'd have a lot of games with coaches sitting in their chair for 31 minutes.

Originally Posted by Dad

There is such a thing in the example he gave. Here ya go:

Immediately following a goal or free throw by Team A, A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and A2 subsequently throws the ball through A's basket. RULING: The following procedure has been adopted to handle this specific situations if it is recognized before the opponents gain control or before the next throw-in begins: A) Tech B) delay of game warning c/d/e) blah blah blah. Comment: If there is no doubt the throw-in was a result of confusion, the entire procedure would be follow except the tech. If it's the second delay-of-game there is a tech.

Originally Posted by Adam

Yep, that's the scoring team interfering with the throw in. Not at all related to the OP here. The OP does not even remotely fit with the four designated options for DOG.

DOG is not a catch-all to be used anytime a team confuses or annoys the officials. It cannot, by rule, be used for this situation. That's what Smitty meant by "there's no such DOG".

Originally Posted by Dad

I'll finish here since we've all stopped reading posts and just cherry-picked what we want to harp on. I never said anything about a DOG warning to the OP. I posted the case book play someone was referring to and I even QUOTED what they said about not giving the confused kid a T. The case book says confused or not it's DOG. Again, NOTHING to do with the OP and I was replying to someone's reference of the play.

Not enforcing coaching box rules is probably going to lead to a rule change I don't want to see. Whether it's not giving us a judgement call anymore or not allowing coaches to call a TO. Neither of which I personally like.

I'm sure someone like you or Rich could pass on this and it'd be okay. But having it a basis of what we can and can't pass on, in my mind, will make NFHS make a rule so officials can't screw it up. This I don't want to see.

I'm not cherry picking anything. I know you didn't bring the DOG into the situation, and I know you weren't suggesting it's a good option. But the post I quoted above in red seemed to indicate you think there's precedent for calling a DOG in the OP. Otherwise, I'm clueless as to why you quoted that particular case play in this thread.

This particular play is, quite frankly, not going to happen to 99% of us over our entire careers of scholastic ball. One official deciding to use a little bit of "intent and purpose" application here and give the coach some leeway isn't going to lead the NFHS anywhere.

Allowing coaches to consistently roam outside their boxes, approaching the table or the endline at will, might just do that.

The reason I asked about the "just outside the box" situation was to point out that we all use judgment when enforcing this rule. If the coach in the OP had been having issues staying within the box, I'm calling the T. If he interferes with play, or makes me alter my path to my position at either C or L, I'm calling the T.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dad

Honestly, around here this isn't much of an issue and I don't pay enough attention to coaches to see if there foot is on the line. If I can tell I make it clear I would really appreciate if they'd stay in the box because I don't want to have to call a stupid technical. I've also never called one, but that's not to say one wasn't called on a game I was on.

His confusion over there being a TO doesn't justify anything for me. What confusion? There was none from what I read in the OP. Now if he asked for a TO and my partner said okay and didn't blow his whistle that's different. Here the coach is just being dumb and that's not reason enough for me to pass..

I'm not really talking about a coach with a foot on the line. I'm talking about a coach who's got both feet outside the coaching box; approaching either the end line or the table. Maybe he's three feet outside the box, but still out of bounds. Are you going to call this T or are you going to warn him first?

There's no rule basis for handling this any differently than you'd handle the OP. I don't care "why" he might be confused. If it's obvious to me that he's behaving as if there was a timeout called, I'll assume he was confused. The coach is just being dumb and that's not reason enough for me to ring him up. Now, if this was his second offense, you can disregard. If he'd had any issues with me at all, disregard.

He's not coaching, he's not arguing, he's not doing anything but making a (big) mistake. But I'm also not going to disparage an official who'd make the call. I'd back that call 100% as a partner without hesitation.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Smitty

My point, if you read my entire post, is that we aren't as strict as that in my area so we would end up giving a T in he first minute of the game if we cared about the coaches taking a step out of their box. We deal with it when the coach complains and is out of his/her box. Or if they are very far out of the box. But we don't mark the box and we certainly don't T up a coach because they are a foot or two out of it and coaching.

Do you mean the school's don't mark the box? Like at all?

[IUgrad92]

Originally Posted by Smitty

The OP as written, I'd be most likely to play on and not issue a T. No press, so the coach did not disrupt play. He had a brain fart and wasn't being argumentative. If the other coach said anything I'd tell him I would have done the same thing for him. I do not think this situation, as written, is T-worthy.

What if a state evaluator was there doing an evaluation on you, in preparation for the upcoming state tournament. Would anyone handle it differently?

What if instead of the coach having a brain fart, it was a player who had one and took off his jersey within the confines of the court?

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

What if a state evaluator was there doing an evaluation on you, in preparation for the upcoming state tournament. Would anyone handle it differently?

What if instead of the coach having a brain fart, it was a player who had one and took off his jersey within the confines of the court?

I suppose it depends on your state and your evaluator, but I know ours (or at least the ones I've had) are pretty big on game management and I would think that calling the T might actually cost you a shot if you're on the fence. Maybe not, but I think that not calling it would garner more respect about how to handle the situation than calling it would.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Do you mean the school's don't mark the box? Like at all?

Correct - they do not mark the coaching box.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by IUgrad92

1. What if a state evaluator was there doing an evaluation on you, in preparation for the upcoming state tournament. Would anyone handle it differently?

2. What if instead of the coach having a brain fart, it was a player who had one and took off his jersey within the confines of the court?

1. This specific situation in the OP? No, I would not handle it differently if an evaluator was there. I mentioned that in my area, the coaching box is not something we stress over. It's not just me. It only becomes an issue if a coach is far outside their box or if they are outside the box and complaining.

2. Now you're changing the situation, and I said very clearly what my response was to the original situation.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by frezer11

Do you mean the school's don't mark the box? Like at all?

Originally Posted by Smitty

Correct - they do not mark the coaching box.

I know we talked about this a couple weeks ago in a separate thread, but it still boggles my mind. I still subscribe to the 'can't use what doesn't exist' theory on this one.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I know we talked about this a couple weeks ago in a separate thread, but it still boggles my mind. I still subscribe to the 'can't use what doesn't exist' theory on this one.

Every once in a while I will have to direct a coach back to his box. the situations are typically when they are standing in front of the table or are down near the baseline. The common approach is to give them from one end of the chairs at their bench to about 14 feet down, which is arbitrary since we don't have it marked. As long as they are in front of the chairs, we tend to leave them alone.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Every once in a while I will have to direct a coach back to his box. the situations are typically when they are standing in front of the table or are down near the baseline. The common approach is to give them from one end of the chairs at their bench to about 14 feet down, which is arbitrary since we don't have it marked. As long as they are in front of the chairs, we tend to leave them alone.

Was it on here that I read someone advising not to start the game until the AD took care of this? We had to carry athletic tape in our jackets early in the season for this reason but most have some sort of semi-permanent demarcation now.