Illegal or not?? Please Help!!
 

Need your help with this…….
During the first game of District Tournament, Team A put a coach (who had been fired a few weeks earlier and also happens to be the husband of the now head coach. ) at the top of the stands with a cell phone, to call down to a coach on Team A’s bench, who was wearing a hidden bluetooth headset. The fired coach in the bleachers called all of the plays, where Team B’s gaps were, who to double team, who was dropping down on defense, and how to run the offense on Team B’s defensive holes.
They won the game and were caught at the end and turned by the officials who were refereeing the next game. In disputing this, Team B was told there was nothing illegal done and that they (Team B) could have done the same thing because NFHS approved the use of electronic devices for basketball. The head coach of Team was fired that night due to her actions of using wireless communication. This happened in Kentucky by the way, and KHSAA said that nothing can be done. Does anybody on this forum know the rules on this??? It’s a shame that Team B was put at such a competitive disadvantage and not allowed to advance.
All coaches involved admitted what they had done to the Board of Control, as well as KHSAA.

It depends on whether the rules of the particular state differ from the NFHS. The NFHS rule allowing use of electronic devices is to allow the use of IPads and similar technology on the sideline for the purpose of coaching and gathering stats. It specifically prevents their use for communication.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Case 10.1.3A makes this a team T.

I applaud school A for firing the coach of Team A.

In the Technical-Foul Penalty Summary of the 2015-16 NFHS Rules Book, under Administrative, it lists "electronic communication". This would be a team technical foul, and count towards team foul count.

Am I reading this wrong, or is ruling in this case play incorrect? It says 10.1.3A is legal (looking at the 15-16 case book), while 10-1-3 clearly states that using an electronic communication device is a technical foul.

Jerk married to Jerkette. Both canned,Great!

Kentucky rules do not differ from NFHS rules.
When I challenged the use of electronic devices for communication, I was basically told that I was misinterpreting the rule and that the rule meant a coach couldn't communicate with a player on the floor (as in if the player were wearing an earpiece). Below is an email that was sent to Julian Tackett, KHSAA interpreter and his reply...

Dear Mr. Tackett,

I’m writing you today to respectfully ask for your help, as well as interpretation, regarding an incident that took place at our girl’s district basketball tournament. I made several attempts to reach you and did leave a voicemail for your assistant today, asking that someone return my call but did not get a reply.

I’m sure you are aware of the situation, with regards to the McLean County vs Ohio County girls’ basketball district game this past Monday. I spoke with Butch Cope this morning, who stated that McLean County’s coaches did nothing wrong concerning this situation and that the use of an illegal coach at the top of the bleachers, calling from his cell phone to a coach on their bench, while using bluetooth to communicate during the game, was an acceptable practice and that our team could have done the same. The McLean County coaches used these devices to gain a competitive advantage over our team during district play, allowing for plays to be called from the top of the bleachers from the birdseye view of an illegal coach, who continually called which plays to run, where to set screens, where our gaps were, and which of our players to double team. He had a birdseye view of the court, and was in a position that a coach on the bench or in the coaches box, could have NEVER had. This is a completely unethical practice and would not fall within acceptable NFHS Coaches Code of Ethics.

Mr. Cope stated that this behavior and unethical practice was acceptable since a rule was passed last year that would allow the use of electronic equipment. I, however, understand/interpret this rule as allowing the use of tablets to gather and record statistical information and that the uses of such devices were to be utilized solely for such purpose.
I also understand/interpret KHSAA bylaw 15 to be understood as a team or staff member may not use any equipment that would give one team a competitive advantage over the other during a game, which was the exact conclusion of their use of these devices.

KHSAA bylaw 15 reads as follows:
Sec 2) ILLEGAL EQUIPMENT/VIDEOTAPING
a) It shall be considered a violation of this rule if any school or school representative(s) uses or allows the use of illegal equipment which gains a competitive advantage in the contest and which is expressly prohibited by the rules adopted for that sport.

I am respectfully asking for your help regarding this matter. Please do not excuse the actions of unethical coaches and send the wrong message to these young ladies. Allowing advancement of one team over the other when neither is at fault would be completely unjust. These girls work hard all season and they do so with anticipation of tournament competition.
These coaches not only took from our girls, but theirs as well. Would the outcome of the game been any different had the unethical coaches not used the devices? Nobody could possibly know this now. Is it fair that their girls be punished for something they possibly didn’t know anything about? No!
Now with that being said, should our girls be punished because they were put at a competitive disadvantage, which possibly cost them advancement in the tournament? No!
In my opinion, the fair thing to do in this case is to have the two teams to play again, without the use of unethical or illegal equipment. Another solution would be to allow Ohio County to advance to regional play. I would appreciate hearing from you regarding this matter either by phone or email.


Sincerely,
*******

Mr. Tackett's reply......

From: Tackett, Julian [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 10:40 AM
To: *****
Subject: Re: McLean County vs Ohio County

Thank you for your note. Mr. Cope has given you the proper interpretation in that what was done is not illegal per the playing rules or the KHSAA rules. At this point, Bylaw 15 is irrelevant as it only applies to illegal equipment. Per the playing rules, this equipment was not illegal, so that provision does not apply.

As for the playing rules, there continues to be a prohibition against communicating with players electronically, but not among coaches. This situation, and three others like it that have occurred this year in various states, will place this issue on the agenda for the national rules committee to consider whether or not there should be further restrictions. And while what was done (communication to the bench from somewhere else) may not be illegal this year, that answer could very well change for the coming years. And if such does not change, then all schools should be notified and allowed to have the same opportunities. It is important that the rules committee address this situation for a variety of reasons. This type of communication is perfectly permissible in many sports (i.e. football), but, in reality, has never been addressed for basketball as it wasn't necessary to address when no communication devices were permitted. That clarity will help all of us in the future.

Because nothing against any playing rules was done, there is obviously no needed remedy of replaying contests, etc.

I appreciate the professional tone of your inquiry and when the rules committee makes any decisions about future playing rules, we will notify all of our member schools so that they can prepare for the coming seasons.

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?

I agree and have argued, cited rules, bylaws and still get told that I am misinterpreting this and that what they did was legal!! Can anybody help me with this??

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.

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

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.

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.

From the mouth of the coach,is not electronic communication to the players.

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.

It's just a bad situation for the team that was put at a disadvantage. I mean really, what kind of person thinks to even do this and cheat teenage girls??

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?

It's not cheating. Your team could have done the same thing. It's legal. What isn't proper is the new coach allowing the fired coach to, in effect, keep coaching. That beef, however, is for that school district to deal with.

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.

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.

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

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."

Exactly!!!

The case play is right and you have to read the entire sentence of 10-1-3.

Quote:

Use a megaphone or any electronic communication device, or electronic equipment for voice communication with players on the court, or use electronic audio and/or video devices to review a decision of the contest officials

I'm not an expert on the English language, written or spoken, but when I see a comma used I believe it's to separate parts of the sentence. For example, "he hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base." Those are three different actions being taken, meaning the "dropped the bat" part is not an extension of the "he hit the ball" part.

That is why I believe either the interpretation is wrong, or the wording needs to be fixed.

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.

It could be worded better...and, after looking at it closer, I can see that it looks like cell phone use is prohibited. The case play says "relay" info. I don't see that as being a runner from the stands to the bench. It could be clarified.

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.

You're right and I guess I shouldn't have used the word "cheated" since "technically" there is nothing saying they couldn't do what they did, instead, there was only confusion from NFHS rules and KHSAA interpretation

Not much that can be done when your appointed rules interpreter gets it wrong.

Yeah, wrong or right, he gets the last say I guess.
On a side note though, the referees from the next game are the ones who caught it. So I guess when the refs "reported" it to KHSAA, it's easy to think they must have been doing something illegal....I guess maybe the officials weren't sure either....not to mention when the head coach and assistant coach got fired as soon as they got off the bus back at their school. So I guess this means now that all teams everywhere going to regional and state tournaments can now do this too. Basketball has now become like nascar, every team can have a "spotter".....

Football, of course, has allowed "spotters" in the pressbox for as long as I can remember, although football is very different due to size of the playing field and number of players participating at once.

Methinks a clarification or "editorial change" will be forthcoming from the NFHS on this for next season... personally, I think this type of thing shouldn't be allowed in basketball, but if NFHS decides to allow this type of communication that's fine too... one less AC on the bench to potentially have a problem with.

reading mr tacket email that was posted didn't he say legal among coaches wouldn't think a fired coach could be labeled a coach for the team he was fired from

I don't see how this gives a team an unfair advantage. It's dealing with the same information in the game and I'm guessing you are from the losing school. You could have done this as well but in reality it just appears that the losing team's coach got out coached.

lol --funny watch basketball game sitting up high in bleacher seeing whole floor so much better and I would think if coach and assistant coach willing be fired if caught most of thought it give advantage may be legal but I would say highly unethical or teams be hiring a assistant coach sit in stands instead of on 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.

Do you ever see teams taking scouting videos from floor level?

In the 15/16 book 10.1.3a says they can relay info from up top to the bench. The comment also says electronic devices can be used for coaching purposes. I can see cell phones/ headsets being illegal but these days everybody has them (cell phone) and can email an assistant on the bench.

Removal from the book doesn't mean the rule was changed to make it legal. It just means they decided to put something else in that they felt was more important.

That's 2015-16 10.1.3, subpart (a), not 10.1.3A.


And, it's the same at 2014-15 10.1.3B(a).

The difference being that someone is personally bringing information from the press box or dressing room to the bench. Or, showing plays to team members on the bench. There's no direct "electronic transmission" from the press box to the coach.

I think removal from the book can be an indication that they may have changed it. I don't agree that they remove things just to put something more important in. Its not difficult to add pages. Frankly, they could have just made a mistake. The play saying they have tv in the press box and "relay" it to the bench is also in the 14/15 book. Question is how can you relay it.....

I used the little (a). Just left off the parenthesis.:) and they are the same play. Clearly, last year, "relay"meant no electronic communication from up top to bench because we had the headset play also in book saying you can't do it. Question is does the removal of the headset play mean it's now legal?

Obviously, we could enforce the headset rule but we couldn't stop somebody from up top emailing an assistant on the bench. I think they are likely to allow emailing video to the bench but not go as far as headsets. It could use a rewrite.

Also, the headset play was in the case books when 10-1-3 said no electronics can be used for coaching purposes in the game being played.(my 10/11 books show that) That rule has changed as we know. It may be that they forgot to remove the headset case play when they changed the rule. Finally did this year.

Not true. Print formats have certain production restraints and budget issues. They can very well be limited to a specific number of pages. They drop things all the time without intending for them to no longer apply. Unless there is a statement to say it has changed, it is just as likely to apply as to not apply.

the case book isn't even a hundred pages. They certainly make mistakes and leave stuff in/take stuff out they shouldn't. The headset case play was in the book when 10-1-3 said no electronics used in game. They changed rule. And may have just realized they needed the case play also removed. I just don't think things are removed because it cost too much or they can't go over 100 pages. Maybe so.

I don't know what the exact answer is but the video play says it is legal to relay the info from up top to the bench. Can't imagine they would say you have to personally carry it down when it can easily be emailed these days. We'll see.

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!

Gotta be honest, their isn't that much happening on the floor during a boys basketball game when this would matter... By the time the "spotter" realizes what's happen - its too late. A good player doesn't care about defense and creates his own gaps.
Do we really want to have a separate set of rules for girls and boys... cause this is a non-issue in boys basketball?
If this guy was sitting behind the other teams bench doing this - I'd have a problem... There is no such thing as a birds-eye view that is more helpful than being down on the floor in basketball... That's why the idiots up there never get calls correct!

Ouch! Listen, I personally could care less why the jerk was fired from this school a month prior or why he was fired from the one before, and had he been behind the bench, he would have had the same viewpoint as other coaches. My concern was for the girls. How was this suppose to be viewed when the referees that night said it was illegal and reported it as such to KHSAA or when the coaches (wife and assistant) got fired that very night for doing what they did? I'm not the one who fired them, hell, I didn't even know what happened until the next night! I'm not the one who turned them in, it was the officials and THEIR OWN school administration who did this, so obviously they must have deemed it unethical/illegal in their eyes or at least questioned it. I was only asking for clarification since there seems to be so many mixed views. I understand that this is perfectly legal in football and apparently basketball now too, but with regards to other sports such as baseball, softball, track and field, soccer and even golf, it states no wireless communication, some specifically stating the use of cell phones, so why is it such a reach that it might have been wrong in basketball. To my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure you will, of the position of a coach in basketball is they must be either in the coaching box or on the bench. With that being said, the reasoning is so that each coach has the same viewpoint of the court and same competitive advantage.

NFHS Basketball Interpretations
Situation 1
May electronic devices be used in dead ball situations, such as free throws and throw-ins to communicate with players officially in the game?

RULING: No, the coaching staff may not use an electronic device to communicate with the players on the playing court at any time. They may use an electronic device to coach the players on the bench at any time.

The confusion seems to lie in whether or not they are talking about the player using an earpiece. My argument on this is... If allowable for a coach to use said electronic device with players on the bench, they must not be talking of an earpiece, because why the hell would you need an earpiece to communicate with a player that was sitting right next to you?? I just think how it's written, since it doesn't specifically say earpiece, cellphone, tablet...all of which could be construed as "wireless communication" and "electronic devices," is a little confusing and leaves it wide open for argument between NFHS and KHSAA writings, which also state that it may not be used to gain a competitive advantage over an opposing team in any contest. Would not doing what they did have changed the outcome of the game? Who knows? Although I will add that we handed them a loss at our last meeting and after the husband was let go, they lost every game (4 or 5) up until
the game with us, which was at the district tournament. Again, who knows what the outcome would have been, but that's besides the point. The point is, I was just asking for clarification on rules and interpretations that could have been better written to avoid the confusion. I guess we will all know in April, when as we were told, the wording would probably be changed.

As I recall, all the examples used in the NFHS presentation and pre-season guide when this came out dealt with showing players plays on iPads and similar. This is what was meant by "electronic device'.

Someone will have to find the guide to see if it mentions the type of ear-piece verbal communication we are discussing in the OP

I just want to thank you all for your replies and interpretations, they have been very enlightening. I think the one thing we can all pretty much agree on is that the wording could be more clear and I am very anxious to see what changes, if any, will be made in April.
Thanks again everyone!!

Don't get your hopes up, my friend.