Can assistant coach stand after HC ejected?

[gogumakilla]

For some reason I cannot find this in the rule book. HC gets ejected, as the new coach can the assistant coach stand or does he also lose that privilege?

[SNIPERBBB]

An assistant coach doesn't get promoted to head coach because his boss got tossed. He is bench personnel and gets to sit.

[gogumakilla]

Thanks.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

An assistant coach doesn't get promoted to head coach because his boss got tossed. He is bench personnel and gets to sit.

Hmm. Does that mean he cannot request TOs?

[SC Official]

A team loses the box for the rest of the game after the first direct or indirect T on the coach.

So, no.

And I hate the seatbelt rule.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

An assistant coach doesn't get promoted to head coach because his boss got tossed. He is bench personnel and gets to sit.

Gets to sit, sounds right. Bench personnel, not so much. I don't think this is so clear.

Besides the TO question, the AC can't go to the table for a CE? Can't enter the court to prevent a situation from escalating? Can't permit team members to leave the bench area for an authorized reason? Is not responsible for the conduct of bench personnel?

Unless a rule or case says otherwise, isn't it more appropriate to treat the AC as the HC, with the loss of the coaching box?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by LRZ

...

Unless a rule or case says otherwise, isn't it more appropriate to treat the AC as the HC, with the loss of the coaching box?

He is now the acting HC with the same privileges as the HC. And since HC lost coaching box privileges, the acting HC has lost coaching box privileges.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by Raymond

He is now the acting HC with the same privileges as the HC. And since HC lost coaching box privileges, the acting HC has lost coaching box privileges.

My question was really rhetorical.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

He is now the acting HC with the same privileges as the HC. And since HC lost coaching box privileges, the acting HC has lost coaching box privileges.

Nice explanation Raymond. Simple, and to the point.

Close the thread. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Raymond

He is now the acting HC with the same privileges as the HC. And since HC lost coaching box privileges, the acting HC has lost coaching box privileges.

Got a rules citation to support that?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Got a rules citation to support that?

How about you come up with the rules citation that tells us at the new acting coach cannot request timeouts? Or how about you come up with a citation that says the new acting coach can stand up.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Raymond

He is now the acting HC with the same privileges as the HC. And since HC lost coaching box privileges, the acting HC has lost coaching box privileges.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Got a rules citation to support that?

If that were not the case, many parts of the rule book would be impossible to follow...

ART. 10 . . . Reporting a team warning for delay to the official scorer and then to the head coach.

ART. 11 . . . Notifying the head coach when a team is granted its final allowable time-out.

ART. 4 . . . Notify the head coach and request the timer to begin the replacement interval, and then notify the player on a disqualification.

Does that mean, if the head coach is ejected, there is no one to notify and, as such, a player can never be disqualified (since a player isn't disqualified until the coach is notified)?

If a disqualified player subsequently participates, who do you charge that T to? The rules specify the "head coach".

Also, the book uses "head coach" and just "coach" interchangeably throughout....

A player becomes bench personnel after his/her substitute becomes a player or after notification of the coach following his/her disqualification.

Note here is uses only "coach" where the same thing, in a different part, uses "head coach" (above).

For that matter, the only place "assistant" is mentioned anywhere in the book is in the technical foul summary.

The implications throughout the book are that there is always a "head" coach. Sometimes, they use just "the coach". It is just that one the box is lost for the game, the box is lost for whoever is the current head coach.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Raymond

He is now the acting HC with the same privileges as the HC. And since HC lost coaching box privileges, the acting HC has lost coaching box privileges.

Raymond:

Very good analysis and explanation of the Rule.

MTD, Sr.

[SC Official]

We occasionally have some ridiculous threads on this forum. But this one might take the cake.

I can't believe that the idea of not granting the acting head coach a timeout is even a discussion. And I can't believe that there are actually forum members who think that way.

[BillyMac]

Nevadaref has got to be yanking our chains. He's smarter than that, much smarter.