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

[Dad]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I tend to agree with Adam. If this is clearly a miscommunication by the coach, I'm going to try to avoid a T (unless, of course, he does interfere with the play). I would also look at the spirit of the rule. I know this isn't a directly applicable analogy, but I liken it to the kid who takes the ball out of bounds after his team scores, but is clearly confused on the play. I'm not giving one there unless I have to, and I'm not giving one here unless I have to.

You're going to have to if it's the second delay-of-game warning. The spirit of the rule is stay in your bloody coaching box. They didn't write the box rule for us to determine when we should and shouldn't enforce it.

There's no inadvertent whistle. No one said TO. No player thinks there is a TO. There's zero confusion for me to give this coach any room to leave the coaching box.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Dad

You're going to have to if it's the second delay-of-game warning. The spirit of the rule is stay in your bloody coaching box. They didn't write the box rule for us to determine when we should and shouldn't enforce it.

There's no inadvertent whistle. No one said TO. No player thinks there is a TO. There's zero confusion for me to give this coach any room to leave the coaching box.

No, that's the *letter* of the rule.

The spiriit could be the same...or not.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Rich

No, that's the *letter* of the rule.

The spiriit could be the same...or not.

Literal and intent go hand in hand here, imo, when they made the rule for coaches staying in the box. Well, at least very similar.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Dad

You're going to have to if it's the second delay-of-game warning. The spirit of the rule is stay in your bloody coaching box. They didn't write the box rule for us to determine when we should and shouldn't enforce it.

There's no inadvertent whistle. No one said TO. No player thinks there is a TO. There's zero confusion for me to give this coach any room to leave the coaching box.

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.

[Dad]

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.

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.

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Correct - they do not mark the coaching box.

I never saw one in Houston either.

Official warnings in the book was not a universal practice though. Some officials did them but many did not.

Oh and who could forget sounding your whistle before entering the court during pre-game?

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Dad

You're going to have to if it's the second delay-of-game warning. The spirit of the rule is stay in your bloody coaching box. They didn't write the box rule for us to determine when we should and shouldn't enforce it.

There's no inadvertent whistle. No one said TO. No player thinks there is a TO. There's zero confusion for me to give this coach any room to leave the coaching box.

Honestly, how many of us whack every coach we interact with the first time they step out of the coaching box? I think the answer is pretty close to ZERO, so justifying this T as being because he came out of the box is ridiculous.

As written, he brainfarted, and I'm not punishing him unless he interfered with the play somehow.