Musical Coaches ...
 

Observed a junior varsity game a few nights ago.

First period, female adult junior varsity "head coach" (no other adults on the bench) is coaching, instructing players, calling plays, requesting timeouts, standing within the coaching box, etc.

Second period, male adult is doing all of the above. Adult female is now sitting quietly on the bench.

I inquired about this at the junior varsity halftime and was told that the adult female was the varsity head coach and that she informed the junior varsity officials that the adult male junior varsity (head) coach would be late due to rush hour traffic problems.

Purpose and intent, I have no problem with this in a junior varsity game. How about a varsity game? Would anybody have a problem with that?

Note: I know that we've discussed co-head coaches here on the Forum, and decided that only one of the pair would be allowed the rights and privileges of the head coach, no switching back and forth.

The female Varsity HC is the Jr. Varsity HC for the entire JV game.

MTD, Sr.

In A Game That Really Counts ...
 

Probably correct by the black and white rule, but in Connecticut, if she happens to accidentally say the wrong word to the wrong inexperienced junior varsity official at the wrong time in the junior varsity game, she may be out of the junior varsity game that night, the varsity game that night, and the next junior varsity game (not even allowed on the bench). Yeah, I know it's up to her (she's an adult) to stay out of trouble in any game she coaches, but why make her coach if she doesn't want to coach and there's another adult ready to go who should have been there to begin with. Seems to me that purpose and intent should cover the mid-game switch in this specific junior varsity case.

I really want to know about the same situation in a varsity game. Do we make the inexperienced junior varsity coach coach the entire varsity game if the real head coach is a few minutes late? In a game that really counts?

Whoever is standing and acting like a varsity coach at the beginning of the game is going to be treated just like that unless there is some unusual situation or circumstances like the coach has to leave for medical reasons. Otherwise, if you start standing and acting like a HC, I am not going to treat the other person like a HC in the middle of the game. And that is what I am going to do at any level. Unless you have some precedent or policy that says otherwise, that is what I am doing.

Peace

Well, it's not like they switched or anything, though. She was the acting HC while the actual HC was late or otherwise off-site. Upon arrival, he assumed his normal duties. I wouldn't even think twice about it in a JV game. In baseball, this is explicitly allowed by rule but seems reasonable here as well.

I am sorry, but there are no Acting HCs. I do not care if this a JV game, a Varsity should know how to conduct him/herself as HC.

MTD, Sr.

If the real head coach is running late to the game I am not penalizing him when he gets there by not allowing him to take over as the head coach. That is not the intent of the rule.

However, any bench Ts assessed prior to his arrival will be indirect to him and he will be sitting.

I agree.

Peace

I, too, would tend to allow this.

I'll be honest, I don't understand this comment. I didn't read in the OP that the varsity HC acted improperly or was unsportsmanlike or anything. She just performed normal HC duties since the actual HC wasn't there yet. Upon his arrival, he assumed his duties and she properly became a silent assistant. I mean, if the HC was there but just let her run the show till he decided to speak up, I'm with you, but he physically wasn't even there.

Double Your Pleasure, Double Your Fun ...
 

Don't shoot the messenger. As much as I hate defending Mark T. DeNucci, Sr., it was my fault, inserting some extraneous information about how acting as head coach in two games that night could double her exposure to the chance of getting ejected from the game, which carries a great penalty here in Connecticut.

Note: For the record, the varsity head coach was extremely well behaved during the five periods that she "coached" that night.

ah, gotcha...yea, i got that mixed and was thinking of the OP, agree with you and Mark on that one.

Haven't really ran across it in basketball but had a handful of times in baseball (summer, not school) where the nominal HC isn't really the HC, but he was the guy at the plate meeting. Last summer, 3B coach doesn't like a call and begins to come down when I said "coach, return to your box, if the head coach has a question, I'll discuss with him". He says "I AM the head coach". I took particular pleasure in answering back "You weren't at the plate meeting, sir, so not for this game you're not". He stopped, recognizing I had him on that, but I could tell he was absolutely fuming inside as his hapless assistant/nominal HC came out to get the explanation. Which pleased me to no end. :D

Peanuts And Cracker Jack ...
 

Were both baseball coaches physically present at the site when the plate meeting was held? My original post involved a situation in which one of the basketball coaches was late to the site due to rush hour traffic problems.

Yea, they were both there, i was just throwing that out as an example when the HC is acting as an asst and behaves like he thinks he's still HC. Now I'm muddying the waters!

Relevant ...
 

Not really. Here on the Forum we have discussed co-head coaches in a basketball game, and decided that only one of the pair would be allowed the rights and privileges of the head coach, no switching back and forth during the game. I believe that any Forum discussion regarding this implied that both were physically at the site.

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.