Time to Eliminate the Seat Belt Rule?

[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?

[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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree. Being one whistle away from ejection is what makes the game better; I think improved behavior on the part of a coach post-T has little to do with sitting down in most cases. I say "most" cases because I do know there are some coaches who sit themselves down when they feel their temper starting to boil up.

In general I just don't like it. I want to treat coaches like adults, even when they don't always act like adults, because they ARE adults. Sitting them down is like putting a kid in "time-out." Furthermore, that's one more thing you now have to enforce just after you've assessed the T, i.e. you want to move on but you or your partner now have to confront an already aggravated coach and tell him to sit. That's not helpful to mending the coach-official relationship as the game moves on.

I understand I'm in the minority here. I respect that. Can't help but notice many who share my view, however, have college experience. Seems like once you taste what it's like to NOT impose the seat belt, you realize it's better to just let the coach keep standing. Just an observation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

In general I just don't like it. I want to treat coaches like adults, even when they don't always act like adults, because they ARE adults. Sitting them down is like putting a kid in "time-out."

The HS rule isn't treating them like kids. It provides a consequence for an action and adults accept the consequences of their actions. If they don't want to sit, they don't earn the T. That is treating them like adults.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

The HS rule isn't treating them like kids. It provides a consequence for an action and adults accept the consequences of their actions. If they don't want to sit, they don't earn the T. That is treating them like adults.

No matter how good a coach is at controlling his personnel, sometimes there's no stopping the AC spazz out of telling you to go bite dust you suck at officiating.

[BlueDevilRef]

There is absolutely no evidence that it is better. You agreed with the previous poster that there was no discernible difference. Don't make this about college vs HS officials.

I would agree that not having to worry about watching to see if a coach is sitting after a T would be nice.