Time to Eliminate the Seat Belt Rule?

[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.

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Dad

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.

Again, there are consequences to selecting such an AC. If you don't want to sit, don't hire ACs who cannot control themselves in an adult manner.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

Again, there are consequences to selecting such an AC. If you don't want to sit, don't hire ACs who cannot control themselves in an adult manner.

In the real world, the vast majority of people just spazz out sometimes. The consequence is 2 FTs and the ball to the other team. I see no benefit to the game for telling the coach he has to sit. I do it, and I don't mind doing it, but I think it's rather pointless.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Dad

In the real world, the vast majority of people just spazz out sometimes. The consequence is 2 FTs and the ball to the other team. I see no benefit to the game for telling the coach he has to sit. I do it, and I don't mind doing it, but I think it's rather pointless.

Agree. Glad NY State (or at least in my area) there is no seatbelt rule. The coach has already been punished. Sitting down doesn't change anything, especially future behavior.

[Adam]

The question for me is not whether behavior after the T is different with or without the seatbelt. At this point, the penalty for the next T is the same either way.

The question is whether the seatbelt provides sufficient incentive for proper behavior prior the first T. In other words, is there a noticeable benefit to the way coaches behave before getting their first T in a game. The only measurable way to determine would be to count first Ts, not second Ts.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Dad

In the real world, the vast majority of people just spazz out sometimes.

They do? The vast majority of people? What world are you living in where the vast majority of people behave that way? I like the seatbelt rule - as long as the coaching box is considered a privilege, taking it away is a fair consequence of behaving like a jackass. I would be in favor of limiting the seatbelt to unsporting behavior T's only and not things like pregame dunking and uniform issues.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dad

In the real world, the vast majority of people just spazz out sometimes. The consequence is 2 FTs and the ball to the other team. I see no benefit to the game for telling the coach he has to sit. I do it, and I don't mind doing it, but I think it's rather pointless.

In the real world, people are expected to behave professionally. If I spazz out in a meeting and embarrass my boss, he's going to have more to worry about than two free throws and a seat belt.

I still don't understand why we can't expect adults to behave like adults, especially when they're teaching our children how to behave like adults.