Ts and More Ts

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SC Official

An intermission is one minute long. I see nothing in the rules that makes A1 bench personnel up until the moment the ball becomes live to start the new period.

By the way, these questions highlight the worst rule in NFHS. It's palpably stupid that the head coach loses the box because a player mouths off on the way to the bench after a quarter expires. The conversation telling the coach he has to sit is bound to turn hostile every single time.

The seatbelt rule is the NFHS's worst rule and it's not even close IMO.

FWIW (and I always caution against using rules from other sports), FED VB changed a rule this year so that if anyone on the bench (including the head coach) gets a YELLOW card, the head coach DOES NOT need to sit.

So, we might see a relaxation of this rule in the future for FED

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FWIW (and I always caution against using rules from other sports), FED VB changed a rule this year so that if anyone on the bench (including the head coach) gets a YELLOW card, the head coach DOES NOT need to sit.

So, we might see a relaxation of this rule in the future for FED

One can only hope. My concern is that FED does not want to be perceived as dialing back on sportsmanship, but if the VB committee was willing to do it, one can hope the basketball committee will be, too.

It's funny, we are always preached to about how we should treat technical fouls just like any other foul - but having the seatbelt rule alone makes them a very different foul.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

One can only hope. My concern is that FED does not want to be perceived as dialing back on sportsmanship, but if the VB committee was willing to do it, one can hope the basketball committee will be, too.

It's funny, we are always preached to about how we should treat technical fouls just like any other foul - but having the seatbelt rule alone makes them a very different foul.

The seatbelt rule was tied to granting coaches the ability to stand and use the coaching box vs. being required to sit all the time. The coaches were given the box with the caveat that they'd lose that newly granted box it if they misused it. And remember, the box was once 6'. It is now 28'. I'm fine with a coach losing the box if they get a T....it is probably more motivation for them to control the bench than the T itself.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The seatbelt rule was tied to granting coaches the ability to stand and use the coaching box vs. being required to sit all the time ...

Ancient times. The real "seatbelt rule".

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The seatbelt rule was tied to granting coaches the ability to stand and use the coaching box vs. being required to sit all the time. The coaches were given the box with the caveat that they'd lose that newly granted box it if they misused it. And remember, the box was once 6'. It is now 28'. I'm fine with a coach losing the box if they get a T....it is probably more motivation for them to control the bench than the T itself.

Agreed. Too many already have a "designated sniper" and it will only get worse.

It's a COACHING box, not a COACH'S box.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The seatbelt rule was tied to granting coaches the ability to stand and use the coaching box vs. being required to sit all the time. The coaches were given the box with the caveat that they'd lose that newly granted box it if they misused it. And remember, the box was once 6'. It is now 28'. I'm fine with a coach losing the box if they get a T....it is probably more motivation for them to control the bench than the T itself.

The game evolved to allow them to stand, and the game can evolve to get rid of the current rule, as well.

The two free throws and possession for the opponent are more than enough motivation for coaches to behave themselves and control their benches. And if they aren't, that is why we have T's at our disposal. Of course, if an official is unwilling to penalize misconduct from the bench, that is a different issue in and of itself.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

... The two free throws and possession for the opponent are more than enough motivation for coaches to behave themselves ...

Four years as a high school player (often on the bench watching my coach), twenty-five years as a coach, forty years as an official. Over the years I've found that many coaches are willing to take technical fouls just to motivate their players and to rile up their fans, often timing their poor behavior "act" so that the technical foul is charged when the opponent has the ball to lessen the "sting".

Not for me however. As a middle school coach I never used technical fouls as motivational tools but rather as more of a way to support my players. I occasionally did "take" technical fouls to support my players (and show my support of players to their parents in the bleachers) who had been penalized by obviously poor officiating. Especially when they've done something legal exactly as I taught them in practice, that was ruled illegal by an under qualified official (middle school games don't always have the luxury of getting well qualified officials). For me, it was worth the two free throws (most of my coaching career was before the coaching box "seatbelt" rule) to show my full support of my players, even in a close game (but never late in a game, I wasn't a stupid coach).

Take my word for it, coaches really hate coaching while sitting. Late in my coaching career I was once "whacked" very early in a road game (no warning) by a non-certified official, a physical education teacher from the "host" school with a Foot Locker jersey (that's almost completely true), for coaching while outside the box (it was six foot box back then, and not paying close attention, I was definitely well outside the box, I still don't know how I got all the way down to the endlne corner), and I really, really hated coaching while sitting. I actually had one of my bench players sit next to me whose sole job was to keep reminding me to sit down to avoid an ejection (no assistant coach). Take my word for this, sitting can be distracting to a coach, and may slightly, but actually, impact his coaching ability.

For coaches considering taking a "motivational technical", possibly timing it to reduce the "sting", the additional penalty of having to sit may outweigh the two free throws alone, and they may think twice about their poor behavior.

And I still disagree that the "seatbelt" is a main deterrent that keeps many officials from charging technical fouls. Yes, it may be one deterrent, but it's way down on the list (see my post above).

I won't lose any sleep if the NFHS changes the rule as they did with volleyball, but I'll use the rule as a game management tool until it's changed.

The "seatbelt" rule is part of doing business when basketball officials have to take care of business.

Wait? I really like the sound of that.

The "seatbelt" rule is part of doing business when basketball officials have to take care of business. © 2020 BillyMac