The coach better not have some "choice words" for me. His action caused him to get the T (assuming he isn't tossed) and he can't blame anybody but himself (hisself?) for what takes place after he knocked the ball away.

Ok, now back to my original question to those of you who would eject the coach in this situation. Is it because you consider the act of touching the ball while in the coaching box to be extreme? It's certainly not persistant, vulgar or abusive. Again, I'm just asking. "Let's toss him, because he touched the ball in an extreme manner." Is that the concensus?

making a travesty of the game!!! unsportsman like conduct....ejected...

Chuck,
I have to say that if I did eject him, it would be because I viewed the act as extreme.
It's completely outside the bounds of anything he could be trying to do. We allow coaches to address us during games, so when they take it too far, we give them a 'simple' T. Players are allowed to move with the ball, but when they do so without meeting the requirements, we call a violation. Players are allowed to defend against baskets, but when they break a rule attempting to do that, we call a foul.

I cannot think of any justifiable motive here. He simply lost his head in a moment of frustration. That's fine, I can live with that. Don't fire the guy, but I think an ejection is perfectly acceptable here if for no other reason than to say that a coach purposefully interfering with play on the court is extreme unsportsmanlike behavior.

That said, I'm not sure I'd automatically eject. It's possible I'd let it go with a simple T.

Adam

As I pointed out earlier, j, making a travesty of the game is grounds for forfeit, not ejection.

Okay, then, put it under Rule 2.3.

Rethinking different scenarios. I guess I can't say that I would have an ejection 100% of the time. If it's a blow out of a men's game and everyone is friends and they are just having fun with each other then I wouldn't toss in this case. But in a game where the players are kids/teenagers and the coach is an adult, I think this calls for an ejection the majority of the time.

Aaaaargh!
One of my pet peeves rears it's ugly head. R2-3 is in the book to cover anything that might come up that isn't already covered in the rules. I've never run into a situation yet where the use of R2-3 was necessary, and I can't remember hearing about any either; there always was some language available that seemed to fit, or that you could make fit.

This play is clearly already covered under R10-4-1--i.e. it's a T for a coach to commit an unsporting act. The FED left the definition of an "unsporting act" open so that the calling official could use his own judgement as to whether something that happened was actually unsporting or not in his opinion, if it wasn't specifically listed. The FED also left it up to the calling official to judge whether that unsporting act was of a flagrant nature or not also. Iow, wnen all is said and done on this play, whether the coach gets a regular ol' T or a flagrant T is strictly a judgement call by the calling official.

Woody, I respect your experience, and judgment, and if you say it's a judgement call, it must be a judgement call. Can I make the judgement right now, and save a little time?

No! :D

Also, never agree with anyone either just because they've been around for a while. That one might end up getting you in real deep doo-doo sometime. Always make up your own mind and trust your own judgement.

The only point that I was trying to make, Juules, was that this play was already covered and that R2-3 is (very) rarely needed. If you've personally made your mind up as to how a situation like this should be called, then you're making the right call in your own mind anyway. Well, that's all she wrote right there, podner, imo. I'm not about to second-guess anybody on calls like this, whether they happen to be on one side of the "ejection" argument or the other.. Everybody sets their own line on T's anyway. It's one call that probably will never really get standardized, but that's not necessarily a bad thing either imo. As long as the game is called evenly and kept under control, then I don't think that anyone should ever really b*tch about the officiating.

Okay, so if I've never seen you work, and I can't judge on your experience, how the heck do I gauge your authority?!? Besides, I wasn't basing my judgement on your YEARS of experience. By that standard, no one else on the whole board would have any room to argue with you, right? :D

Rather, I'm looking at the kinds of experience I think you have had. YOu're an assignor, right, and a rules interpreter? And you've done many high level games, right? So your experiences at a wide range of levels should be respectable, and a good foundation for your authority.

Lah me, thanks for the kind words, but I honestly still don't think that anyone's resume should really be taken into account when you're gauging the worth of their words. That was my point. And this play is a good example of that. Whether you're in the "toss him" or "just T him" camp, it's still ends up as being <b>your</b> call- and you should be comfortable with that call after you've made it.

Woody --

Here's my problem with what you're saying. As a learner, I need to watch others and see what works for them. This gives me a feel for what I'm working toward. If I just went by what "I feel comfortable with", I'd have been thrown out of the whole gig a long time ago. And when I see some others who are "just calling it the way they see it", I think THEY should "retire"! I don't want to just stubbornly do it my way, regardless. On the other hand, there is a LOT of judgement involved in basketball officiating, and a ref HAS to feel comfortable with their own calls and game. But that "personal game" has to be within the bounds of the overall community. When someone is an assignor, has done lots of college, lots of hs play-offs, lots of interesting and challenging work, that someone's opinion weighs a lot more in how I adjust my game to conform to the overall basketball community. And that's how it should be. I think. If you say, it's a judgement call, and you have to go with what feels right at the time, I understand what that means, and I try to see the situation that way. But if you had said, this is never an ejection situation, I'd adjust my thinking, too, based on my inexperience, and your background. I think that's a reasonable way for me (and others!) to grow and learn, especially when we choose carefully to whom we give that kind of authority. I'm not saying this to flatter you. Would it make better sense if I used a different example? Go back and read the whole thing again with rockyroad as the authority. He's someone who's helped me a lot, by telling me how to do things based on his experience and background. And it has been great for me to adjust my game to fit into his teaching. "Feeling comfortable with my own game" is more possible when ceratin others agree that my own game is acceptable.

I'm not Woody, I don't even play someone named Woody on TV. But I have a dog named Woody so I feel qualified to answer.

STOP IT!!!!! The guy is trying to tell you that it's a judgement call. A judgement call means a judgement call. You wanna toss the coach in this play? Fine! Toss his @ss and proudly live with it! If someone questions you about it just say "Sh!t yeah I tossed him!" and move on with your life. If an assignor is stupid enough to fire you for it then to hell with him.

Just stop trying to walk some fine line that does not exist.

NY just went up 1-0 BTW, so we'll be OK. :)

Jeez, I thought <b> I </b> was having a bad day...!!

Is it okay if I say, "Heck, yea, etc..."