Illegal or not?? Please Help!!

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

If what he's saying were true, then why does Rule 10-1-3 say that using "any electronic communication device" were a technical foul, and goes on to say that "electronic equipment for voice communication with players on the court" was also a technical foul? Was the NFHS just being redundant?

It is legal to do what they did under nfhs rules. You can't communicate with players on the court and you can't use it to review a decision of the officials. For coaching purpose you can do it.

[Jewls885]

But they did use it to communicate with players on the floor.

[frezer11]

Man, something seems fishy here, doesn't seem to pass the eye test. Although it would look weird, I suppose it would now be legal for a coaching staff to take one of the school's football headsets and do the same thing then? Gonna have to think more on this one, I feel like there is something we're missing here.

[Jewls885]

They did however tell us that in April, the wording would be changed so this wasn't allowed. As far as I'm concerned, that's how it already reads!

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Jewls885

They did however tell us that in April, the wording would be changed so this wasn't allowed. As far as I'm concerned, that's how it already reads!

I don't recall hearing anything about it. The rule is clear that you can't use electronic communication device TO COMMUNICATE WITH Players or to review a decision of the officials. And the case play is nearly identical. They would have to change both. As long as your not putting an earpiece on a player or using it to say "ref video shows you made wrong call"..then I'm not aware of anything that prevents it.

[Jewls885]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I don't recall hearing anything about it. The rule is clear that you can't use electronic communication device TO COMMUNICATE WITH Players or to review a decision of the officials. And the case play is nearly identical. They would have to change both. As long as your not putting an earpiece on a player or using it to say "ref video shows you made wrong call"..then I'm not aware of anything that prevents it.

I think he meant as in wording using wireless communication/cell phones. The current rule is electronic devices for coaching on the bench and for statistical data. Not to let a fired coach continue to coach from the top.
Is there not a rule about where coaches have to be, as in on the bench or coaching box?

[Jewls885]

There are only 3 teams in this district. After the head coach was fired, the boys basketball head coach coached the girls in the championship game, which they won.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BigCat

I don't recall hearing anything about it. The rule is clear that you can't use electronic communication device TO COMMUNICATE WITH Players or to review a decision of the officials. And the case play is nearly identical. They would have to change both. As long as your not putting an earpiece on a player or using it to say "ref video shows you made wrong call"..then I'm not aware of anything that prevents it.

IMO, the wording in 10-1-3 is not very clear. While I'm sure what you said is their intent, it could have been worded a hell of a lot more clear. I believe it can be read like they are saying using electronic communication devices... for any purpose... is illegal, and goes on to give communicating with players on the court, and reviewing officials decisions, as particular examples only.

[Jewls885]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

IMO, the wording in 10-1-3 is not very clear. While I'm sure what you said is their intent, it could have been worded a hell of a lot more clear. I believe it can be read like they are saying using electronic communication devices... for any purpose... is illegal, and goes on to give communicating with players on the court, and reviewing officials decisions, as particular examples only.

Yeah, it's kind worded loosely and can be interpreted a couple of different ways. I think that's why they said the wording would be changed in April

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

IMO, the wording in 10-1-3 is not very clear. While I'm sure what you said is their intent, it could have been worded a hell of a lot more clear. I believe it can be read like they are saying using electronic communication devices... for any purpose... is illegal, and goes on to give communicating with players on the court, and reviewing officials decisions, as particular examples only.

It's pretty clear. You can't use electronic devices to communicate w players on court or to review officials' decisions. That's the plain meaning of the words used. It doesn't say "for any purpose."

[Jewls885]

I appreciate and thank everyone for their input on this. It's just been a very frustrating situation and you hate to see anything taken away from either group of girls because of unethical actions of adults. I truly believe you will be seeing changes in the next rule book.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Jewls885

I appreciate and thank everyone for their input on this. It's just been a very frustrating situation and you hate to see anything taken away from either group of girls because of unethical actions of adults. I truly believe you will be seeing changes in the next rule book.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the one team was cheating. Clearly the state believes everything was within the rules. Just because one team didn't know the rule doesn't mean the other team can't take advantage of it.

If my team runs an OOB play after a made basket, where the inbounder passes it along the baseline to another teammate that's also out of bounds, is what I did cheating because the other team didn't know that was legal? Of course not.

So while I may be on your side as for the legality of the play in the OP (I say "may" because I'm not yet convinced either way, although I tend to go with BigCat), I don't agree the other team cheated.

[Refhoop]

Originally Posted by Jewls885

I appreciate and thank everyone for their input on this. It's just been a very frustrating situation and you hate to see anything taken away from either group of girls because of unethical actions of adults. I truly believe you will be seeing changes in the next rule book.

What's unethical about this?
Seems you're more hung up on him being fired... for what reason i don't know or care - that's the districts issue.
Do we really expect that a fired husband/coach won't help his wife in any way possible to win!?
If the rules don't disallow it, why is it wrong?
If he was sitting behind the bench and giving her information, would this be wrong or none of our business?
BTW: When a parent is in the stands coaching their kid - do we consider this cheating?
Also, if they're still winning - maybe they're just better!

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Jewls885

But they did use it to communicate with players on the floor.

You can relay things from up top to the bench. You can't have a kid with a device on the floor. See 10.1.3a. It is the same type of play.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigCat

You can relay things from up top to the bench.

No, you can't.

10.1.3A "Team A's coach (b) is in contact with an assistant coach in the press box via a headset. RULING: A team technical foul is charged in (b).

edit: I see part of the problem. This is in the 2014-2015 book, but has been removed from the 2015-2016 book.