Time to Eliminate the Seat Belt Rule?
 

Listening to a local radio show the other day and the host's guest was a prominent local HS coach. He was talking about how he got his first T in five years the other night when he was warned for (as he described it...haven't heard the official's perspective yet) being a few steps out on the floor early in the first quarter. Coach is a little annoyed but jokingly says, "if you pay as much attention to the calls on the floor as you do to where I'm standing tonight, we'll be all right." He gets whacked. His biggest beef on the radio show was that he coaches his kids a step or two on the floor all the time, and that this is the first time in forever that any official enforced the rule so literally. He felt like the official was out to get him.

On one hand, provided the coach's account is accurate, I believe we may have had a "gottcha" referee situation, here. On the other hand, I think the T was justified because no matter how much you disapprove of an official's literalism, you can't make a snarky comment like that and expect to get away scott free.

But this is all backstory. The coach then went on to lament that the worst aspect of what happened was that he had to sit the rest of the game, making it much harder to coach, and the fact that the T happened so early in the game exacerbated the T's impact. It was like a game-long penalty rather than a spot-correction. He wants to end the seat belt rule in NFHS. Feels sitting is a prolonged humiliation that actually causes tension with the officials to fester, and that this aspect of the rule outweighs the deterrent effect that it purports to have.

And so I ask: What do you all think? Has the seat belt rule outlived its purpose? And does anyone know if the rules committee has ever pondered eliminating it before? (I'm thinking probably not considering the coach's authority to stand is still technically a state association adoption option, even though all but 2-3 states have now adopted it.)

It's additional incentive to behave; leave it the way it is.

And even assuming the coach's story is accurate, I have no pity.
Part of our job is to watch the whole game, including keeping the coach off of the court. If I tell a coach to stay off the court, and he decides to ridicule my attention, there's a sure way to keep him off the court.

I know the ref who T'd him and one of the partners. I'll stay out of this convo. :)

Seriously though, I could do without the seatbelt rule.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Which Seat Belt Rule ???
 

We eliminated the seat belt seat rule (in most states) in 1989. Coaches can now stand and coach. crosscountry55 is probably referring to the seat belt penalty rule.

Carry on.

This was pretty obvious in context.

Or Else ...
 

When old farts like me hear "seat belt rule" we think back to the days when we would often (very often) instruct coaches to, "Please sit down" (usually without the "Please").

Are there any states out there that do not use the optional coaching box?

What Do You Mean That I Have To Sit Down ???
 

A few years ago I had a coach who almost chose not to have a kid play with an illegal number rather than the coach sit down the rest of the game and allow the kid to play. It was a tough decision for her, but she finally lamented to let the kid play. Standing is a big deal for coaches. I coached middle school basketball before and after the coaching box rule, and I much preferred standing.

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.

As long as they are not in the way of the game at all, and they aren't out on the court to yell at me, I'm pretty lackadaisical when it comes to them staying in the coach's box.

Part of my speech to coaches, if I'm the R, before the game goes like this...

"Mind the coaching box. I've never run into a coach, and I don't want to make history tonight." Or, "mind the coaching box. You're a lot bigger than me and if I run into you I'm going to get hurt."

I get a little laugh out of that, and I feel it's said in a way that they remember it. Not that I haven't had to tell a coach to get back, anyway.

As for the seat belt rule, I like it. It's a penalty for them being stupid. Without it the first technical is no more than a slap on the wrist. Sort of like a yellow card in soccer. It's like... "whatever, I got away with something."

It's February. If I tell the coach I need him to stay in the box and he mouths like this fellow did he's earned the T. It's not hard for a coach to make it through a game without a T. If they get one let them sit. Frankly, it might save them from getting tossed....

The "T"s I've had this year really seemed to quiet things down... I like the rule.

They didn't get away with anything. They get assessed a technical foul, a team foul, and the other tean gets 2 free throws.

Works well in colkege ball.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Yes, they don't completely get away with it. :rolleyes:

While I'm sure there are plenty of idiotic coaches in college, I can't help but feel that percentage is much higher at the high school level and lower.

To take things further... I like that coaches, especially in some cases, have to sit and for the most part stay out of the way. If they were able to stand then there's a much better chance for another altercation that would lead to an ejection... and those always go over so well.

I agree we should keep the rule. Sitting an obnoxious coach keeps him further away from the officials and makes it less likely that he'll earn the 2nd T.

Unless the team bench is so close to the court that there isn't enough room, I see no legitimate reason for the coach to step onto the court. Enforcing the coaching box rules is a POE for us this year, but we don't hammer them unnecessarily. We try to gently remind them, even to the point of walking them back to the box. That said, it is a "coaching" box, not a "yelling at the referees" box, and if they abuse the privilege they risk losing it.

We had similar situation as that described in the OP in a game several weeks ago. Coach was sniping rudely at us from the opening tip, also occasionally wandering out of the box several steps. Less than 4 min into Q1 my partner called a foul - the coach was several steps out of the box and partially onto the court. I transitioned from T to L to administer the free throws, and as I passed him I quietly said "Coach, please watch the box". He responded loudly with a snide and disrepectful comment that earned him his first T and the seat belt. IMHO and that of my partner, it made the game better.

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

Didn't think so.

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

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....

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

Ncaa ???
 

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.

Lemony Snicket On The Forum, No Way ???
 

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)

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

No Gray Hair ...
 

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?

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.

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

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.

Jim Boheim or John Calapari much?

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!!!!!

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".

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

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.

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

Time to Eliminate the Seat Belt Rule?
 

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.

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.

I agree with this sentiment too. In my experience the only time this is an issue really is in old HS gyms where there is no room on the sidelines for the coaches. Otherwise a majority of times a coach is on the court HS or college is either after calling a TO or during a dead ball to argue question a call. In those cases unless a coach has come to far or said a magic word my inclination is to first walk him back to his bench. If he doesn't comply it's a T. Second time it happens it's a T. Runs to far on the court a T. It's really handled differently per situation.

I don't advocate automatically Ting a coach simply because he approaches an official to complain/question about a call. But one cannot be afraid to T either way.

And at the camps this is what is taught. The goal is to not T right away but to first try and work with the coach if possible. But like I said if a coach comes running to half court while you are reporting to complain that's T territory.

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.

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.

I don't know if it is the technical itself or the sitting down, but around here, things generally get much calmer and quieter after a [edited: first] T. The more tools I have for game management, the better.

I don't umpire school baseball, but didn't NFHS implement some kind of similar rule, restricting a warned coach to the dugout?

I thought your only option in baseball was to eject.

I think, in school ball, there is a 3-step process (warn, restrict, eject), but you can skip steps 1 and 2 for particularly egregious actions. But, again, I don't umpire NFHS, so I may have the procedures wrong.

Nope. Restriction to the dugout and a written warning for minor offenses. Pretty much required now for NFHS games unless the offense is considered major.

NFHS baseball allows official warnings and/or restriction to the dugout in some situations (I won't list them all here), but as far as I'm aware that's not the case in other baseball rulesets.

NCAA also wants an "official warning" for many items before ejecting.

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.

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.

+1

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.

I wouldnt want to see it goes, A because things calm back down and B)its mildly comical to watch the coach try to find a chair to sit on because they use half the school on the roster.

We can. We penalize with a technical foul when they don't.

Sitting them down does nothing for me.

Yeah, I was thinking beyond the topic at the moment, to people excusing poor behavior because it's an intense game and this is their job or something.

Certainly when the game is not out of reach, 2 shots plus the ball can be a great deterrent to a coach earning a T. But when the game is out of reach, and the points and possession are meaningless, the seatbelt is that extra deterrent to maybe keep them from blowing off some steam at us for the sake of blowing off steam. It doesn't always stop it, but I'd like to think it may prevent a few.

Honestly, I wish they'd just blow steam, we'd assess the T and we'd keep moving.

The perception is that the T is something horrible to be avoided at all costs, which I find ridiculous.

I doubt the seatbelt rule is anywhere in the mind of a coach when a game is out of reach.

Who's saying we can't expect it? I'm not sure how my post can be taken as me being okay with coaches acting like an ass. Even the best coaches on earth freak out when an official "messes up a call" and then get a technical. Often, said coaches are correct, but I'm by no means excusing their behavior. It's a T. Want to keep going? Another T. Ts can stop bad behavior. Removing the bad behavior out of the gym can stop bad behavior. But sitting a coach?

All I'm saying is that I don't think sitting a coach does any good, most of the time. I'm fine with the rule staying or being changed, but if someone asks me does sitting coaches result in better behavior I'm going to tell them probably not.

My apologies. I was responding to a trigger that was no fault of yours. :)

I don't agree that putting a coach in the dugout is required before ejection. It's not a linear process where one must occur before the other. And while I do fast pitch softball, I work with a lot of guys who do both and have never heard of a written warning but maybe that is a state by state thing. I approach the dugout vs ejection thing just like basketball i.e. Answer questions, ignore comments, penalize unsporting behavior. I have used the dugout restriction a lot more recently but that I have attributed to working basketball and likening it to the first T.

It is required in NFHS this year unless it is a major offense. Rule change.

Perhaps, the seatbelt penalty does deter coaches from wanting a T
 

From time-to-time, a coach may think the benefits of getting a technical foul (motivated his players, hopes of getting some favorable calls from the officials) outweighs the cost of two free throw and, possibly, the ball. Adding the seatbelt penalty might deter coaches from "wanting a T"

Great. That is flipping ridiculous. Softball normally does same stuff but on a 3-4 year delay. Something to look forward to I suppose.

I've been part of this in NCAA baseball. Nothing ridiculous about it -- and it works.

If it's minor, you formally warn, put on a lineup card, and restrict to the dugout.

If it's major, you eject.