Coach at start of game

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Brad
I think that a little common sense would go a long way here...

What if the head coach had a flat tire on the way to the game and showed up 1-2 minutes after the tip-off? Are you going to tell him that he is not allowed to be the head coach for that game?

Some would Brad.

Peace

[Luv2Ref]

I understand you could use discression here, however, technically you can only have 1 head coach at start of game. I dont agree with transferring T's if they were to occur. If you dont establish at the start who accepts the definition of "head coach" you could put yourself in a questionable situation if "Asst.Coach" gets a T as Head Coach in 1st quarter before "real head coach" shows up.
From this standpoint, I can understand where DeNucci is coming from.

I had a game last year where 2 coaches said they were co-Head Coaches for the game. I told them for my game 1 of them was going to be defined as head coach for this purpose.
Only 1 coach can be standing up coaching kids from bench for that game. It is not our fault that the Head Coach was late!!!

[Brad]

Realistically, what are the chances that you are going to have a technical foul on the assistant before the head coach shows up? Not much, I don't think...

And if you do, fine, he gets a direct, and when the head coach gets there just let him know he already has an indirect!

I understand that "technically" there can only be one coach, but I think that the spirit and intent of the rule speaks more to not having two coaches at the same time -- not the head coach being late for a game.

If I officiated all my games "technically" I would bet that over half of them would start with administrative technicals for the book not being ready. Personally, I just don't like to start games off on a bad foot!

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Brad
What if the head coach had a flat tire on the way to the game and showed up 1-2 minutes after the tip-off? Are you going to tell him that he is not allowed to be the head coach for that game?

I would if the asst. coach told me he was the head coach. If the assistant says he's just the asst, then he doesn't get to stand for those 2 minutes. Easy.

[just another ref]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
The rules and casebook plays state that there is only one head coach. Why would you let a team change head coach's in the middle of a game.

Simply because the head coach wasn't there at the beginning.

Unless the original head coach becomes disqualified or has to leave the game for illness or some other legitimate reason there is no reason of a team to change head coaches in the middle of the game.

Is being late for a legitimate reason less legitimate than having to leave early for a legitimate reason? Take a little dose of the "Intent and Purpose of the Rules"
section here. This is surely a rare happening. Take the path of least resistance. If the acting head coach had picked up a technical foul, I would simply inform the late arriving coach that if he intended to assume the head coach position, he would also assume the burden of having a technical foul in place.

[ace]

My first question the assitant will be...
Are you the head coach? if he says no then I will simply tell him he does not have the privilages of the head-coach: meaning he cannot talk to the officials or stand in the coaching box (or anywhere for that matter). He is to simply coach the players.
It'll then be up to him and his job if he wants to designate himself as the head coach. If he gets a T then yes... Head coach gets the indirect the 2nd he gets back.


By The Way Brad... what is the coaching box for us here in Texas?

[rcwilco]

I agree with telling the AC he is the AC. Until the head coach arrives he can come out in pre game when we meet the coaches, make decisons for his team but will not stand, use the box and any T's he gets will be indirect to the head coach. I am going to make sure that the AC undrstands and I will work with him on issues. Maybe I am just lucky but I have dealt with few coaches that are going to try to be deceitful or use trickery (however there have been a couple that........). I would have an issue with anything past the second quarter. Knowing up front is a big issue with me now as I posted earlier about a coach that left to help the varsity team with two minures left and never let us know.

[Hawks Coach]

The reason for having only the head coach stand is game managment. With the head cach and a collection of assistants standing and yelling, you can end up with some problems. That's why the rules limit a team to one coach standing (or make them all sit down if your state doesn't allow the use of the box)

It is an advantage to be able to stand and coach. That means the team on the floor benefits. So you would arbitrarily, due to a very technical deconstruction of a rule, not permit one team a privilege because the head coach wasn't there at game time. This is not the spirit or intent of this rule. You punish the team on the floor for nothing that impacts game management. If the Asst (as head) gets a T, everybody is now seatbelted for the game - the T isn't a problem. You can even let the head coach know he has an indirect if he takes over as head coach. but there is nothing to rationally justify why you would want to prevent the assistant from serving as the head coach, with all privileges, until the head arrives.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
It is an advantage to be able to stand and coach. That means the team on the floor benefits. So you would arbitrarily, due to a very technical deconstruction of a rule, not permit one team a privilege because the head coach wasn't there at game time.

Very technical deconstruction? It says "head coach". What is technical about that? Are you the head coach of this team or not? Simple question. The head coach gets to stand and nobody else. That's the rule. As I said (kind of jokingly) earlier, look in the game program. It usually lists the head coach. That's the guy/gal who gets to stand.

This is not the spirit or intent of this rule. You punish the team on the floor for nothing that impacts game management.

With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely Coach, I believe it is the intent of the rule. One person per team per game is entitled to the coaching box. I'm not punishing anybody. It's not personal. Am I punishing kids for not allowing the bench to stand until their team scores the first basket at the beginning of the game? That has no bearing on game management, but they're simply not allowed to do it.

there is nothing to rationally justify why you would want to prevent the assistant from serving as the head coach, with all privileges, until the head arrives.

I guess if you think that "head coach" = "assistant coach", then you're right. Otherwise, the assistant sits.

[Indy_Ref]

Originally posted by Brad
I think that a little common sense would go a long way here...

What if the head coach had a flat tire on the way to the game and showed up 1-2 minutes after the tip-off? Are you going to tell him that he is not allowed to be the head coach for that game?

I think a little common sense goes a long way here, too. There is only one designated head coach. In Indiana, we DO NOT and CANNOT start the game unless we have a pre-game meeting with the HEAD COACH. Why? So that the head coach can verify 2-4, article 5. Those orders came down from the IHSAA office. If the head coach doesn't have time for a pre-game meeting, then the officials cannot start the game until they do. And, the IHSAA office specifies...HEAD COACH.

If the head coach in Indiana has a flat tire and calls game management and lets them know about it, we'll wait for him. If he has no reason to be gone, then we a.) have no game, or b.) designate another head coach for the entire game.

[Hawks Coach]

Chuck
Your analogy on standing at the beginning of the game does not apply - neither team gets to do it. As for why you have this rule, you have not given any reason. When the rules were first changed, there was no box, no standing. Then they were modified to allow one person to stand. It simplifies a lot of things to limit who can have discourse with officials, who can be up yelling at the court from the bench, etc. Nowhere can I ever infer from the way this rule developed that it was intended to prevent an assistant from temporarily staning in for a head coach under extenuating circumstances.

I understand the travel rule, why we have it, why we enforce it. I understand why you don't want fouls and why you call them. I understand the reason for a double dribble rule, a technical foul rule, a limit on the number of fouls, etc. I can explain their existence without simply saying "that's how the book reads" - the rules themselves make sense even if they weren't written down.

I cannot understand why you choose to so literally interpret a rule like this in such a situation as was outlined in this thread. It only punishes the team whose coach chose to attend a wedding - not the run of the mill experience. You can only point to the book and say that's how you read it, that's how you call it. You cannot give me an explanation as to why this makes sense.

[WinterWillie]

Originally posted by Brad
I think that a little common sense would go a long way here...

What if the head coach had a flat tire on the way to the game and showed up 1-2 minutes after the tip-off? Are you going to tell him that he is not allowed to be the head coach for that game?

Common sense: MOVE THE WEDDING BACK TWO HOURS. The HC would probably fail a breathalyzer test when he showed up late, anyway. Besides, what idiot would go to a wedding when he could be at a BB game?

[Brad]

Glad I don't referee in Indiana!

Besides, what idiot would go to a wedding when he could be at a BB game?

It was his wedding

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Your analogy on standing at the beginning of the game does not apply - neither team gets to do it.

Ok, I can see your point, although I still think the analogy has some merit. Try this, then. If your interpretation is right, then after the head coach is ejected, the assistant should be allowed to stand, right? Whoever is calling the plays at the time is allowed to stand -- unless or until assessed a direct or indirect T. If that's true, then the assistant should be allowed to stand after the head coach is tossed. But s/he isn't. Why? Because s/he is not the head coach.

Are we punishing the team by not allowing the assistant to stand? NO! Even tho the other coach is still allowed to stand? NO!

You don't understand why I'm reading the rule literally. And I don't understand how you can stretch it to include someone who is obviously not the head coach. There's one head coach per game per team. If there's more than one, then s/he isn't really the "head" coach, is s/he? The privilege to stand applies explicitly and solely to the head coach.

I'm sorry if you don't understand why. I don't understand why the jump stop is legal*. But it is, so that's how I call it. Maybe this rule is the same way.

* I understand the technicalities of the pivot foot that allow a jump stop. What I don't understand is why the rules committee continues to allow it to be legal. It seems like an obvious loophole to me.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Brad

It was his wedding

All the more reason to be at the game!!!