Coach at start of game

[cmathews]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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.

I am on the fence on this one. First of all, I am one that doesn't mind a coach being up coaching his kids, I really don't care if he is a little out of the box, as long as he is coaching, I will remind them to stay in the box, but it isn't a big deal with me. We have a situation near here where we have a team that has Co-head coaches. When they coached individual teams they were both up and loud, mostly coaching but loudly. When we found out that they were going to be co head coaches, we wondered how the heck this would work. So far it has worked well, they both stand occassionally, but never at the same time. Again I personally don't pay much attention to who is doing what as long as they coach.

Hawkscoach and Chuck, consider this. The "head coach" is a position as opposed to a person. In Chuck's message above, assuming that head coach is a position, the reason the new head coach can't stand is because they have assumed the head coach position, and the head coach allready has a technical foul, so he/she can't stand. Just a thought to ponder...

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by cmathews
First of all, I am one that doesn't mind a coach being up coaching his kids, I really don't care if he is a little out of the box, as long as he is coaching, I will remind them to stay in the box, but it isn't a big deal with me.

I'm with you on that.

consider this. The "head coach" is a position as opposed to a person.

There certainly is a head coaching position. But "the head coach" is a person. The AD didn't hire a position.

In Chuck's message above, assuming that head coach is a position, the reason the new head coach can't stand is because they have assumed the head coach position, and the head coach allready has a technical foul, so he/she can't stand.

Even if we grant your assumption (which I disagree with), the conclusion isn't valid. When the head coach is ejected, the assistant takes over but does not inherit any indirect or direct technical fouls that were given to the head coach. That's not why he's not allowed to stand. If s/he did inherit those T's, then the assistant would also have to be ejected for inheriting the head coach's two direct T's, right? T's are not passed down to the new coach. But he still can't stand.

Why is that? Because he's not the head coach. If that's the way it works late in the game, then that's how it works at the beginning of the game.

[WinterWillie]

Originally posted by Brad
Glad I don't referee in Indiana!

It was his wedding

All the more reason for the breathalyzer test!

[cmathews]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I'm with you on that.

There certainly is a head coaching position. But "the head coach" is a person. The AD didn't hire a position.

Even if we grant your assumption (which I disagree with), the conclusion isn't valid. When the head coach is ejected, the assistant takes over but does not inherit any indirect or direct technical fouls that were given to the head coach. That's not why he's not allowed to stand. If s/he did inherit those T's, then the assistant would also have to be ejected for inheriting the head coach's two direct T's, right? T's are not passed down to the new coach. But he still can't stand.

Why is that? Because he's not the head coach. If that's the way it works late in the game, then that's how it works at the beginning of the game.

Chuck, I don't disagree with anything you said above. You may have misread or I didn't clarify what I was trying to say. I didn't mean that the asst. coach (person) that assumes the head coaches responsibilities would inherit the T's already assessed. What I mean is that the T that got the head coach ejected prevents anyone from using the coaching box anyway.

How about this little situation. Only the head coach can go to the scorer's table to request a time out for a correctable error situation or to rectify timing or scoring mistakes 10-5-1 b & c.

Are we saying that if the head coach is ejected early in the 3rd quarter, that now that team no longer can ask to have correctable error situations evaluated, and or timing and scoring mistakes rectified??

[rcwilco]

Hawks Coach,
There are a lot of common snense things involving age, rec, school, and the spirit of the rules and game. However, in addition to what I posted, if I have the AC only because the head coach is a little late, and I see him up talking to a player on the bench in what is an obvious coaching or teaching situation as well as the AC standing momentariy and givng quick coaching or instructions to a player I will not see that. If the AC is up chirping at us in same scenario, different story. For myself this is consistent with part of the reason why I am out there, the kids. Standing to complain or comment does not give them an advantage or lack of IMHO.

[gsf23]

So then let's say that you have ejected the head coach of team A from the game. Now, later in the game, the assistant for team A stands to request a time out. Will you grant it? Going strictly by the book you would have to say no. Only the Head Coach can request a time out.

Player from team B is called for a push, it is team B's 7th team foul, but the ball is being inbounded underneath. The assistant from team A goes to the scorer's table to find out why his team is not in the bonus. Are you going to T him up? According to the book you have to, only the head coach can go to the scorer's table to discuss a correctable error.

I would hope that most officials would use common sense in these situations and not just go by the book.

[dhodges007]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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

ROFLOL!!!

[Hawks Coach]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hawks Coach

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.

Now you are talking about a different situation. I am discussing a situation in which no wrong has occurred. You are discussing a situation in which a coach was ejected. I am saying that the rules are not written to cover the situation of a coach being late to the game, they are written to cover the ejection. So you go to a sensible solution in the first case, which is to allow the team to have a head coach at the start of the game and change when the true head coach arrives. In the second situation, you are punishing a coaching staff/team for an event which impacted the game.

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

The rules were changed to go from not allowing coaches to stand to allowing them to stand. I have been seatbelted once in my entire coaching career, and I can tell you it changes how you interact with your team. Removing the right to stand (and thereby changing the dynamic of coach/team interaction) because a coach abused their privileges is one thing. Changing it because the head coach not being present at the start is an entirely different issue.

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 have yet to see an explanation of what you accomplish by imposing this literal restriction. I can see the downside of making a coach sit. I cannot see the downside of having a surrogate head coach until the true head coach arrives, especially if you apply the rules so that if the surrogate is seatbelted for an act before or during the game, that seatbelt extends to the head coach. Indirects would be applied to the head coach. If you follow that guidance, where is the harm in allowing this to occur.

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 don't understand why the jump stop rule is precisely written as it is, but I can buy into the general principle of limiting motion without dribbling. Traveling could be three steps instead of two, as long as it is qual for both teams. The reasoning for the general restrictions on movement make sense, the particulars of these restrictions are just a matter of taste. I can clearly see a harm in allowing one team one set of rules for a jump stop and applying a different set to the toher team. On the other hand, I clearly do not see the harm in allowing an assistant to stand in the absence of the head coach.

* 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. [/B]

[Edited by Hawks Coach on Jan 7th, 2004 at 03:37 PM]

[RookieDude]

Chuck...you're usually an easy going guy. What's up?

This exact situation was brought up at our last meeting.
It actually happened...Head Coach late because of a wedding.

The veterans said let the "New Head Coach" take over.
Heck, he's the Coach let him coach. He didn't start the game as an assistant, because he wasn't there...they weren't playing games, with changing coaches...he just wasn't there. Common Sense.

You make good arguments, as usual, but some believe you might be playing with words a bit when you say the Head Coach is a person and not a "positon". I think you can designate the "person" to the "postion" of Head Coach...just as you do when you have co-coaches...one is desiganted the Head Coach...ONE ONLY. So, designate the Asst. Coach as Head Coach, with all priviledges, untill the "real" Head Coach arrives...simple really.

Is the Captain of the team a person or a position?
I say s/he can be both. Just because a player is a Captain for the first game of the year...does s/he then have to be a Captain the rest of the year? The program had him/her listed!

Around these parts Varsity Coaches rate officials. Maybe that has something to do with the veterans saying let the Head Coach come in late from his wedding and Coach. It's political, but it's also using common sense according to our veterans.

RD







[Edited by RookieDude on Jan 7th, 2004 at 10:21 PM]

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by RookieDude
Chuck...you're usually an easy going guy. What's up?

What do you mean "usually"? I am an easy-going guy, g*$&%&* it!

You make good arguments, as usual, but some believe you might be playing with words a bit

RD, I'm the one who's NOT playing with the words. I'm taking the words at their face value. The words say the head coach stands, period. So that's my position. Are you the head coach? Then you can stand. Period. If you're the assistant, filling in until the head coach arrives, then you sit. I honestly don't see how there's any argument over this. :shrug:

You mention co-coaches. Are you going one coach to stand for the first half, and then "appoint" the other one head coach so he can stand for the second half? Not a freakin' chance. So why would you appoint an assistant to be "head coach" for 5 minutes and then appoint the real head coach for the rest of the game? That's silly.

If you're the HC, you may stand. If you're not, then you may not. That's the rule.

[cmathews]

Chuck,
What about the ability to go to the scorers table to request a timeout for a correctable error, or timing/scoring mistake? Are you not going to allow the asst. to do this after an ejection? BTW I still think you are easy going, it is nice to have a discussion like this one without it deteriorating like one I participated in last month......LOL

[ChuckElias]

That's a decent point, C (that's for Chris, isn't it?). I ignored it earlier b/c I just hadn't thought it thru. I have a board meeting on Sunday. I'll think it over and ask somebody there about it. Maybe I'll have an answer on Monday.

[cmathews]

actually the C is for Chad, but not really that important, I like you am an easy going guy, and you can call me most anything as long as you don't call me late for dinner... I think it is a valid point, unfortunately it might cause contradiction within the interps...wow that would be new hu....