Varsity boys. At start of game assit.coach is acting as head coach because head coach is out of town at a wedding and has not made it back to town. At start of second half head coach has arrived and takes over coaching duties (up off bench, talking to refs, etc...) Is this allowed? If not, and the other coach brings it up, how should it be handled.

I've not seen "head coach" defined anywhere in the rules, so I can't find a basis for not allowing it. I know some refs will have a problem with it, but I've not going to consider this a hill worth dying on when I can't back it up with rules.

As always, my view is open to change if someone gives me a rule that leads me there.

Adam

The coach that starts the game as head coach is the head coach for the entire game unless, he/she gets disqualified/ejected, or has to leave the game for someother reason, such as illness (because he/she is sick of the officiating). To allow a change is a recipe for manipulation if there are technical fouls on the bench.

Based on what rule or case play, Mark?

Are you going to let the team change head coaches every quarter. Remember, the head coach is disqualified if he/she receives two direct technical fouls or a total of three direct and indirect technical fouls. Are you going to let a team change head coaches after the first head coach receives a direct technical foul, so that the new head coach can say I do not have any technical fouls charged to me for bench misconduct because I was not the head coach when the other head coach received his/her techncial foul. There is too much room for manipulation.

There can be only one head coach and that is the one who starts the game, unless the situations that I stated in my first post occur.

Ya know Mark, I read & reread the original post and not once did I see a "technical foul" mentioned. I did see someone went to a wedding, but no technical fouls...maybe the coach got hit with a flagrant rice throwing T?

Still waiting on the rule reference.
The sitch's that you mentioned above are different than the posters sitch. Your's are game misconduct sitch's, and I believe that no one would allow substitute head coaches in those.
I would not feel manipulated if I was aware that a head coach was running late from a wedding and joined his team a little late. But just my humble opinion.

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.

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

I know what the original post said. There has to be a continuity to team management. While it is unfortunate that the "real" head coach is running late, once the game starts, the "real" head coach is the one that is running the team, and not the coach that gets to the game late.

I have one for ya.
 

Rule 2-3 states, "The Referee shall make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules."

This is not a situation that is covered in the rulebook or casebook. Unless someone can reference something, this is your best bet.

If it was me I would probably allow it (not that different than another situation we discussed here) if I was discussed before the game. I would ask the other Head Coach to see if he had a problem with it. If he did not, then I would let the coach come back and take his proper role.

At that point you do what you feel is best. It will be an interesting thing to ask your assignor afterwards or rules interpreters for guidance. But at that time, you have to do what you feel is best.

Peace

Mark,
Assuming we have a coach's box. I don't have a problem switching head coaches in the middle of the game, at any point. Here are three alternatives for dealing with it.

1. Tell the AC right away that he is the assistant, and as such cannot stand during the game. Team has no HC for GM purposes until real HC arrives. I don't like this one.

2. Tell the AC right away that he is the head coach for game management purposes (with all the rights and responsibilities inherent in that), and the real HC will be an AC for gm purposes.

3. Not worry about it, and if there are no T's prior to HC arriving, allow the change. If there is a direct T on the assistant coach (acting HC), that would then transfer as an indirect T on the new HC. If there has been an indirect T on the AC (acting HC), it transfers to the HC when he takes over duties. This would need to be communicated prior to change in personnel.

I've been told around here not to allow this. if the assistant starts the game as the head coach, he's the head coach throughout, and whoever shows up and joins later is now the assistant. I cant give a rules reference, but it's "the cowboy way" around here, so that's how I do it. I'll change my tune when I hear it from Howard.

It's only my opinion, but it just seems clear to me that there's only one head coach. Just look in the game program. If the head coach is not present, that doesn't make the assistant a head coach. He's just filling in until the head coach arrives. Likewise, if the head coach is ejected, the assistant who takes over does not become the new head coach, with coaching box priveleges. It seems to me that a team's head coach is not just whoever happens to be calling plays at the moment. It's the team's head coach. And there's only one of those.

The coaching box may only be used by the head coach (FED 1-13-2 NOTE; NCAA 10-11-1). And there's only one of those per game.

The only other rule citation I can offer is from the NCAA rulebook. It's AR 15 on page 134 of this year's book. It says basically that if a team has co-coaches, only one of them is allowed to stand. The intent is pretty clearly that only one person (per team) per game gets coaching box privileges.

(The real beauty of this AR is that even tho only one co-coach is allowed to use the coaching box, they both get charged with any indirect T's!! :D )

You know what's interesting about this scenario? I asked (back when I was a co-coach for a high school) what to do if a team has co-coaches (since the conference I coached in had at least 2 schools with that situation). The executive director of the state association (now retired) flat out said only the head coach. I asked for a definition. ONLY THE HEAD COACH! He said, while his face turning red from anger. I was like if a team has 2 head coaches (duh, what does co-coach mean????), he said for me to shut up and remember it's the head coach only. So, if I were to ask the question of the current executive director, I'll be the same thing would happen. I don't think the national rules committee has actually taken the time to define a co-coach situation. I think (personally) they don't want to deal with it, because of the ivory tower theory (don't ask me to explain that one!!!).

I think you would get a different response. That is not a normal reaction. I would like to hear the other side of the story.

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?

Exactly
 

Some would Brad. :rolleyes:

Peace

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!!!

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!

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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?

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.

A little perspective, please
 

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.

Re: A little perspective, please
 

Very technical deconstruction? :confused: 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Game fees
 

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? ;)

Glad I don't referee in Indiana! :)

It was his wedding :)

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<font color = red>*</font>. But it is, so that's how I call it. Maybe this rule is the same way.

<font color = red>*</font><font size = -2> 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.</font>

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

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...

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.

Game fees
 

All the more reason for the breathalyzer test! :)

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??

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.

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.

ROFLOL!!!

:D

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

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.

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 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.

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

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]

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


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.

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

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.

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....