game mgmt./ sitting coach

[cloverdale]

in a recent game my partner who was the R had T'd the coach for going off on him...loss of coaching box...later in the game I called a lane violation, on ensuing O.O.B. I hear him asking (politely)for an explanation...as I'm running by I give him an quick explanation and the game goes on...on reflection would it been better to tell him he needed to set back down and spend a time out for explanation, due to loss of box, or handle it as i did? I'm more concerned for not supporting my partner's T rather than defusing a tense situation.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by cloverdale
in a recent game my partner who was the R had T'd the coach for going off on him...loss of coaching box...later in the game I called a lane violation, on ensuing O.O.B. I hear him asking (politely)for an explanation...as I'm running by I give him an quick explanation and the game goes on...on reflection would it been better to tell him he needed to set back down and spend a time out for explanation, due to loss of box, or handle it as i did? I'm more concerned for not supporting my partner's T rather than defusing a tense situation.

If he asks in a reasonable way, and then sits back down, I'd definitely skip anything disciplinary or instructive. It sounds like what you did was fine. You don't want to re-inflame him by appearing bossy, or legalistic. THe point to the seat belt rule is to get the coach to back off. If he backs off the abuse or the harrassment, that's backed far enough, although I wouldn't let him keep standing and standing. But if he's more or less staying seated, you're fine. Don't sweat the small stuff.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rainmaker

If he asks in a reasonable way, and then sits back down, I'd definitely skip anything disciplinary or instructive. It sounds like what you did was fine. You don't want to re-inflame him by appearing bossy, or legalistic. THe point to the seat belt rule is to get the coach to back off. If he backs off the abuse or the harrassment, that's backed far enough, although I wouldn't let him keep standing and standing. But if he's more or less staying seated, you're fine. Don't sweat the small stuff.

I disagree completely with that. Why would you even think of SKIPPING anything disciplinary or instructive in this particular case? That's not doing your job! And it sureashell isn't supporting your partner! Just the opposite- it's undermining your partner. The coach just got a T. He can't stand and ask ANY official questions now while the play is going on. That's the discipline, by rule, and it's that simple. You inform him of that, and also inform him that he can't stand to ask questions now as a result of his own actions in getting a T. That's the instructive part of the sitch, even though he should already have received that particular instruction when he first got his T. Iow, he already shoulda been told that his actions cost him the right to stand, and now he's just completely ignoring those instructions. You don't have to yell at the coach, and you certainly can tell the coach that you'll still answer any reasonable questions- but not while he's standing and play is going on. To do otherwise sureashell IS making your partner look bad, imo. What does your partner do now when he goes by that bench, and the coach that he just T'd up is standing on the sideline now and asking him questions? You just let the coach get away with that exact same act, didn't you? You're sure putting a lotta pressure on your partner now, and in a 3-person crew it would be even worse. It makes your partner look like the bad guy, while you're making yourself look like the good guy at the same time. Wrong message being sent!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I disagree completely with that. Why would you even think of SKIPPING anything disciplinary or instructive in this particular case? That's not doing your job! And it sureashell isn't supporting your partner! Just the opposite- it's undermining your partner. The coach just got a T. He can't stand and ask ANY official questions now while the play is going on. That's the discipline, by rule, and it's that simple. You inform him of that, and also inform him that he can't stand to ask questions now as a result of his own actions in getting a T. That's the instructive part of the sitch, even though he should already have received that particular instruction when he first got his T. Iow, he already shoulda been told that his actions cost him the right to stand, and now he's just completely ignoring those instructions. You don't have to yell at the coach, and you certainly can tell the coach that you'll still answer any reasonable questions- but not while he's standing and play is going on. To do otherwise sureashell IS making your partner look bad, imo. What does your partner do now when he goes by that bench, and the coach that he just T'd up is standing on the sideline now and asking him questions? You just let the coach get away with that exact same act, didn't you? You're sure putting a lotta pressure on your partner now, and in a 3-person crew it would be even worse. It makes your partner look like the bad guy, while you're making yourself look like the good guy at the same time. Wrong message being sent!

I see your point. Perhaps I haven't done enough varsity yet. At the lower levels, and at lower quality varsity games, in this situation, if the coach stands asks a polite question for information, and then sits back down again -- even during play -- I'm giving him a two or three word answer, and going on with the game. If he does it every time down the floor, I get more "instructive." If his question or comment is even remotely confrontational, he's gone. This is how I've been told repeatedly to handle this. The theory is that if the coach has calmed down and is less hostile now, you've re-gained control and allowing polite, brief, infrequent, information only questions gives both partners the reward for handling the situation well.

[zebraman]

Rainmaker and Cloverdale,

I'd be more apt to use an approach that is somewhere in between what you suggest and what Jurassic suggests, even at the varsity level. If I felt that the coach just temporarily forgot to sit and was asking a legit question, I might give him a quick comment like, "coach, I'll answer that for you when I get a chance, but you've been seatbelted so you have to sit down first."

This accomplishes what Jurassic wants (support for his partner as well as compliance with bench decorum by the coach) and also accomplishes what you want which is good communication with a coach who hasn't done something that deserves an automatic second T. If I think the coach is being beligerent and standing to spite the officials who seatbelted, I might whack him on the spot but I'd have to be darn sure of his "devilish intentions."

Z

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by zebraman
Rainmaker and Cloverdale,

I'd be more apt to use an approach that is somewhere in between what you suggest and what Jurassic suggests, even at the varsity level. If I felt that the coach just temporarily forgot to sit and was asking a legit question, I might give him a quick comment like, "coach, I'll answer that for you when I get a chance, but you've been seatbelted so you have to sit down first."

This accomplishes what Jurassic wants (support for his partner as well as compliance with bench decorum by the coach) and also accomplishes what you want which is good communication with a coach who hasn't done something that deserves an automatic second T. If I think the coach is being beligerent and standing to spite the officials who seatbelted, I might whack him on the spot but I'd have to be darn sure of his "devilish intentions."

Z

Thanks, Zebe. I wish I'd said it your way.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Perhaps I haven't done enough varsity yet.

As I've said before, it's just my opinion, but below HS level you should be even tougher on coaches. Most of them don't have a clue what their boundaries are; so set them early and make them extremely tight. They'll learn or they'll sit in the parking lot.

Having said that, Z's approach is the right one. "Coach, ask me again when you're properly seated on the bench."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Having said that, Z's approach is the right one. "Coach, ask me again when you're properly seated on the bench." [/B]

I believe that that is exactly what I said in my original post--i.e. "You don't have to yell at the coach, and you certainly can tell the coach that you'll still answer any reasonable questions- but not while he's standing and play is going on.".

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I believe that that is exactly what I said in my original post--i.e. "You don't have to yell at the coach, and you certainly can tell the coach that you'll still answer any reasonable questions- but not while he's standing and play is going on.". [/B]

Yeah, but you were just so much grumpier about it! Must be something about us guys under 5'10", that we can just explain things in a much nicer way...

[DownTownTonyBrown]

I'm looking in an older book ... Holy cow 2001-02! That's bad. I don't even have last year's book here to reference.

However, Rule 1-13 "By state association adoption, the head coach may be off the bench in front of his/her seat with the confines of the coaching box to give instructions to his/her players and/or substitutes..."

Removal of that "coaching/instructional" priviledge due to a technical foul does not mean the coach cannot still be involved in the game ... such as asking questions of an official... and the other activities delineated in 10-5.

Personally, I would NOT tolerate trivial/petty questions that are intended to push the limits and see if he really could do a little more standing and coaching. Allowing that, would definitely be a slap in my partner's face. However, asking legitimate questions in a mature, professional manner should still be allowed. He/She is still a participant and has only lost his/her standing to coach priviledges. Questioning the lane violation may well be the petty question I would not allow. HTBT.

I'm sure someone will point me to case play or the appropriate rule if I am wrong...

[Edited by DownTownTonyBrown on Sep 16th, 2004 at 05:21 PM]

[DownTownTonyBrown]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rockyroad

Yeah, but you were just so much grumpier about it! Must be something about us guys under 5'10", that we can just explain things in a much nicer way...

I thought he was a little grumpy too. I was expecting to read that Jurrasic was going to immediately "T" him!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

However, Rule 1-13 "By state association adoption, the head coach may be off the bench in front of his/her seat with the confines of the coaching box to give instructions to his/her players and/or substitutes..."

Removal of that "coaching/instructional" priviledge due to a technical foul does not mean the coach cannot still be involved in the game ... such as asking questions of an official... and the other activities delineated in 10-5.

Personally, I would NOT tolerate trivial/petty questions that are intended to push the limits and see if he really could do a little more standing and coaching. Allowing that, would definitely be a slap in my partner's face. However, asking legitimate questions in a mature, professional manner should still be allowed. He/She is still a participant and has only lost his/her standing to coach priviledges. Questioning the lane violation may well be the petty question I would not allow. HTBT.

I'm sure someone will point me to case play or the appropriate rule if I am wrong...

Tony, I agree that asking legitimate questions in a mature, professional manner should still be allowed. But NOT if the coach is standing and asking those questions while play is going on. He has to ask them while sitting down. The head coach in the sitch being discussed has already lost that particular right because of his actions. He has to ask those nice, polite questions now while sitting on his butt. And he should already have been informed of that fact when he got his T and got seat-belted. If he gets up now, he's basically saying t'hell with his restrictions- they don't apply to him.

From the 2001/2002 rulebook (hasn't really changed ), Rule 10-5PENALTY--"When the coaching box is being utilized, then the first technical foul charged directly or indirectly to the head coach results in the loss of coaching-box privileges and the coach shall comply with the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 for the remainder of the game". Articles 1 and 2 of R10-5 lay out exactly and minutely what the head coach is now allowed to do. The head coach must remain seated except to call a TO, go to the scorers' table about a correctible error or a scoring/timing mistake, replace a disqualified player, confer with his players during a charged TO, attend an injured player when beckoned onto the court or rise to do a l'il bit of cheerleading(and then sit right back down). That's all he can do standing up now. Nothing else! The head coach CANNOT be on his feet to ask questions from any official after he's received a T, by rule. That's part of the penalty that the FED specifies, and it t'ain't up to us to change or amend that penalty.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad
[/B]

Yeah, but you were just so much grumpier about it! Must be something about us guys under 5'10", that we can just explain things in a much nicer way...
[/B][/QUOTE]Grumpy? Moi?

You must have me confused with someone else, O Rockius Exiguus. I'm sure that Chuckius Exiguus would agree with that also. He knows that I'm NEVER short with people.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

And it sounds good.

If a state has not adopted the coaching box rule - and I doubt that any of them have NOT, then the coach could not stand for anything but those specific items listed in 10-5.

My point was that the coaching box definition (1-13) says that it's only use is to coach and instruct players. And that use, of coaching and instructing, is what I assumed the coach would lose.

It's great to see some rules discussion starting again!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by DownTownTonyBrown

My point was that the coaching box definition (1-13) says that it's only use is to coach and instruct players. And that use, of coaching and instructing, is what I assumed the coach would lose.

It's great to see some rules discussion starting again!

The purpose and intent of the rule, as I think that you already know, was to always allow a coach to instruct and...well...coach. The only way that he could ever lose those particular rights was to get that 2nd. T. You can't coach and instruct that well from the parking lot. 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.

Geeze, Tony, are you tired of the scintillating rules discussions taking place over on the baseball forum? Don't you wanna be the Editor-In-Chief any more when you grow up? Heeheeheehee.......

Btw, in FED baseball, can't you restrict a coach/manager to the dugout also if he's giving you a hard time? Or something like that? Same concept maybe?