For those that would not allow "switching" the HC mid-game. Would you allow this?

Asst. coach tells you before the game the HC will not make it on time. AC agrees that he will not use the coaching box and officials should not honor time-out requests from the bench (the players have been instructed to request timeouts if they hear the AC ask for one). When the HC does arrive, he will use the box and request TOs as normal.

Me? Wrong ? ...
 

I would go one step more. After informing the opposing head coach, I would allow the assistant coach to do all the regular head coaching duties until the real head coach arrived at the site and then I would allow the real head coach to take over the head coaching duties.

But, I've been known to be wrong before, just ask any veteran Forum members, or even Forum members who just joined a few hours ago.

The issue is not who will do one thing over another, the issue is that most of the time we have no idea (at least I don't) who is or who is not the coach and their role. If you never tell us, then not my issue. Even had varsity head coaches try to act like HCs during lower level games and that simply is not going to happen that way. It is not about who can request a timeout, I am just not dealing with two different styles as coaches when things go crazy. If you want all the privileges, you better be there when the game starts.

Peace

A Varsity Game That Counts ...
 

I can certainly see your point, but what if you are told in advance that the head coach will be late due to a flat tire, traffic, or is in the locker room vomiting, or needs some sugar to avoid insulin shock (and has to test his blood), and may not be available until ten, or fifteen, minutes after the posted starting time? You've also been informed that the delayed head coach is willing to start the game on time if his assistant can be a "temporary" head coach, and that opposing head coach agrees?

When all involved are informed there are three choices for the referee to chose from: Delay the start of the game. Start the game with the assistant coach as the head coach and don't allow the switch when the real head coach is available. Start the game with the assistant coach as the head coach and allow the switch when the real head coach is available.

With purpose and intent, as well as sportsmanship, in mind, I'm going with the third option. Is the switch-coached team really gaining an illegal advantage, especially when the opposing coach is informed and agrees? What unsporting advantage is gained?

Yes I would allow this, and I would allow the acting HC all privileges of the real HC until the latter's arrival. Once the real HC arrives, the acting HC will no longer have those privileges; if he doesn't understand this, I will make it clear. And upon his arrival, if applicable, the real head coach will be informed of any bench T's that occurred in his absence and be reminded that he will not have the coaching box for the entire game (and that those bench T's are indirect to him).

I'm allowing the situation as described in the OP. I'm not forcing the V coach to coach the entirety of the JV game.

If the situation were to arise in a V game I'm allowing it as well provided its communicated before the game and we inform the other coach what is going on.

All direct, indirect Ts would carry over and the "acting HC" would now be treated the same as any other asst coach or bench personnel.

Rights And Privileges ...
 

Let's flip it. Real head coach is coaching. Second period, real head coach is called away on a day job business related emergency (one of our local head coaches is the supervisor of public works in the city he coaches in). Are we not going to allow the assistant coach to take over and act as the head coach with all rights and privileges?

If the coach switching is not unsporting, and the opposing coach is informed, and agrees, I don't have a problem with coach switching under certain (but not all) circumstances.

You guys are making this WAY too complicated.

The intent of the rule is to prevent two individuals on the bench from flip-flopping head coach privileges throughout the game, or from simultaneously acting as head coaches (IOW, to prevent co-head coaches). Do any of these hypothetical situations fit under the intent of the rule? Answer that question (hopefully with a big fat "NO") and there's your answer.

Just so you know, I had a situation during a tournament where the normal HC allowed his son to be the HC during a game. I even had to ask why the HC was acting as the AC. He explained and we moved on.

Again, do what you wish. We are all not the same in how we deal with things. I am just saying it better be pretty explanatory about the situation for me to even consider this. But if he/she comes late and nothing was said, I am going with who was the HC when the game started. The rules also say that the Referee can make decisions that are not specifically covered in the rulebook. Well, this is one of those situations.

Peace

Agree

No Explanation ...
 

No explanation? Agree.

This actually happened earlier this year in my area on a GV game. The head coach collapsed and had to be removed via medical transport during the contest. The officials allowed an asst coach to take over all HC duties.

I believe this is the correct stance. Applying the rule to the letter of the law is just being a hard as$, look at me, I'm in control type of official.

IT'S A FREAKING JV GAME!!!!!! No reason to not let the head coach of that team coach his/her team once they arrive on site. If they are running late because of whatever reason, that is understandable in my book and I will allow the switch whenever the head coach gets there. If they are switching just to switch, that's a different story.