Time to Eliminate the Seat Belt Rule?

[OrStBballRef]

I like the seatbelt rule as it enforces 'good' behavior and as another poster stated in this thread many coaches like standing up during the game and coaching. Having to sit down and coach isn't quite the same. The possibility of losing the box I would like to believe is a big factor in some behavior choices that coaches make.

I would think if we removed the loss of box penalty you'd have more Ts as coaches know they can cross the line one time and not lose the box.

Now for the OP I would have whacked the coach for that comment as well. That being said if a coach is a step or two on the court and coaching, not in my way or commenting he/she may just get a gentle reminder to stay in the box. For me personally that kind of reminder doesn't register on my radar for conduct issues....

[Rich]

I think we'd be better off removing all this perceived stigma with technical fouls and just call them.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

I'd eliminate the belt after a technical. If it were up to me the box would be 28' as well.

Like, and like again, especially the second part.

Isn't that the NCAA rule? That's what we use for our hybrid NCAA/NFHS prep school rules.

Wait a minute? Should I try to look that up first on my own before I post the question? Oh no. Now I'm in big trouble.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

Is there anyone out there in the least bit confused by the original post?

No confusion on my end. I was just giving some historical perspective. A few may like that, many others probably don't.

“Those unable to catalog the past are doomed to repeat it.” (Lemony Snicket)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rich

I think we'd be better off removing all this perceived stigma with technical fouls and just call them.

Agreed. In college ball when we call a technical on the coach we move on and so does the coach.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rich

I think we'd be better off removing all this perceived stigma with technical fouls and just call them.

It's a foul. Charge it, penalize it, and move on. But I will admit that it took me several years to figure that out at the beginning of my career. To a young BillyMac back in the 1980's, technical fouls seemed like a "big deal". Don't know why, they just did. And the single Moms in the stands didn't seem so hot back then, but they do today?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

For the most part I don't care if a coach is a step or two on the court when coaching as long as they are WAY out of the play. If it comes to a point where it may become problematic I do remind a coach to be aware of his position on/by his bench. If I ever do run into a coach and they are on the court I'm Ting them up without even thinking.

This is the exact opposite of what the NCAA has been instructing for the past few years. I'm surprised by your position since you seem to adhere so closely to the philosophies taught at college camps.

[JRutledge]

I am indifferent about this. I have no issues either way but think that part of the reason the penalty is there is to deter coaches from being stupid and over the top.

I would be more of an advocate to allow the coaching box to be bigger.

Peace

[WhistlesAndStripes]

I'm of the opinion if we would properly apply the unsporing conduct rule to coaches, this would all take care of itself. I recently had a game involving a school that has a coach that can be a problem at times. During pre game, one of my partners said, "If he starts getting after us tonight, the first thing I'm going to do is put him back in the box." I said, "And then you're going to let him get after us from there?"

I'm pretty diplomatic when it comes to dealing with coaches, but I also assess my share of T's when it comes to unsporting behavior. Just cause they're in the coaching box doesn't give them a pass to act in an unsporting manner. The last T I gave a coach, he was in stomping down the sideline reading me the riot act for something I hadn't even done. And he was in the box while doing so.

[BlueDevilRef]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Agreed. In college ball when we call a technical on the coach we move on and so does the coach.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Jim Boheim or John Calapari much?

[BlueDevilRef]

I know it's so cliche but sports in a scholastic environment should still have a large measure of sportsmanship. Failing to abide that should have a penalty. It is a known penalty as well, get a T, sit the rest of game. Pretty simple. It is DESIGNED to make it more difficult to coach, that's part of it. I might have some pity on the coach in the OP with the exception that he admitted breaking the rules but wants to whine the official was out to get him? Maybe he should abide the rules and get to keep his privilege? What a concept!!!!!

[JeffM]

I would prefer to do away with the seatbelt penalty.

I don't care much about the 14' and 28' marks on the coaches box.

I do wish that officials at all levels would prevent the coach from being on the court when the ball is in play. I don't think coaches listen any better to a coach who is one step on the court than they would if he/she were out of bounds. That said, I don't enforce it because I don't want to be "that guy".

[JeffM]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

I might have some pity on the coach in the OP with the exception that he admitted breaking the rules but wants to whine the official was out to get him? Maybe he should abide the rules and get to keep his privilege? What a concept!!!!!

The coach may think that the world revolves around him and everyone is there to watch him coach...

[Altor]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

It was like a game-long penalty rather than a spot-correction.

It's not "like" a game-long penalty. It is a game-long penalty. He needs to keep his mouth shut and he won't have to sit.

[constable]

It doesn't matter much to me.

I work one rules set with it ( NFHS) and one without it ( FIBA).

There is no discernible difference in the behaviour of the coaches post T in both rule sets.