The Official Forum - game mgmt./ sitting coach

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - game mgmt./ sitting coach (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/15407-game-mgmt-sitting-coach.html)

Yes, you can. Sometimes this is better than ejecting him.
If you have to suffer through a 22-0 stomping, so does he.

...and yes, I'm sure the Wizard's job is not as fun as it once was.

Re: I follow your logic

Quote:

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown
If a state has not adopted the coaching box rule - and I doubt that any of them have NOT,

Boys' coaches in Iowa cannot stand, as only the Girls' Union has adopted the box. Haven't heard of any plans for the Boys' Association to do so.

after reading the posts to sitting coach i see that people read the intent of the seatbelt rule differently...for me after some reflection i will not allow the coach to stand and ask questions because i think it undercuts my partner...my partners backside is a responsibilty i take seriously ...answering his questions while he is seated could still be done but maybe making him spend a timeout might make him think twice before he goes off on another offical...thanks for the reply's...

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
... :D The FED just didn't want coaches on their feet yapping at the officials and putting on a show. That's why the seat-belt part of the penalty was enacted; the idea was that maybe some coaches would think of the consequences of getting T'd up. Imo, if you still let 'em roam after they get a T, you're defeating the purpose of the penalty, as well as making the job of the next crew in that much harder if they haveta T up that coach too....

I agree with what you have said here whole-heartedly. What I was envisioning is a coach that has lost his coaching/instructional priviledges and that as I run by he wants to attract my attention SO HE STANDS UP and asks, "Who was that on?" "Lane violation number 25." I continue on my merry way and he sits back down. Anything more than that should not be tolerated. ROAMING NOT ALLOWED.

I didn't mean to imply anything else. :)

Yeah, in HS Baseball you can restrict them to the dugout. "You're in the dugout coach for the rest of the game Coach and I don't want to hear another peep out of you." That would be fun to impose on some of our posters.

YOU ARE NOW PEEPLESS. :D

Quote:

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
... :D The FED just didn't want coaches on their feet yapping at the officials and putting on a show. That's why the seat-belt part of the penalty was enacted; the idea was that maybe some coaches would think of the consequences of getting T'd up. Imo, if you still let 'em roam after they get a T, you're defeating the purpose of the penalty, as well as making the job of the next crew in that much harder if they haveta T up that coach too....

I agree with what you have said here whole-heartedly. What I was envisioning is a coach that has lost his coaching/instructional priviledges and that as I run by he wants to attract my attention SO HE STANDS UP and asks, "Who was that on?" "Lane violation number 25." I continue on my merry way and he sits back down. Anything more than that should not be tolerated. ROAMING NOT ALLOWED.

I didn't mean to imply anything else. :)

Yeah, in HS Baseball you can restrict them to the dugout. "You're in the dugout coach for the rest of the game Coach and I don't want to hear another peep out of you." That would be fun to impose on some of our posters.

YOU ARE NOW PEEPLESS. :D

I think that we were on the same page all the way, Tony. I was agreeing with your original post. And I agree with this one also. Nothing the matter with a legitimate question and sitting back down. Don't get up to dexter at me though.

The baseball board is a hoot some days, isn't it? The unfortunate part is I honestly believe that some of those guys have intimidated new umpires into being afraid to post. And that's wrong.