This past weekend I was watching a game while waiting for mine to start. There was 30 secs left and team B was down by 4. Team B came down on a fastbreak and missed a shot. Team A gets the rebound and fastbreaks up the court near Team B's bench. Coach B reaches out and swipes the ball away from the girl dribbling. I couldn't believe what I was seeing!

I've seen coaches do some pretty stupid things but this took the cake. Do to the fact that it was a camp and the refs out there were new, they only gave him a technical. I would have ejected him immediately!

Has this happened to anyone and how was it handled?

I have never had it happen to me or seen it happen, but I agree with you. Had this been a real game, Coach B would have taken an early trip to the showers.

MTD, Sr.

Why exactly? He obviously delayed the game (T-worthy), but was it so outrageously flagrant that he should be tossed?

Just asking.

I would have T'd him for unsporting conduct and another for being outside the box or anything that could be used! I think this is definitely worthy of being tossed. If your the other coach are you going to want this to happen to your girls? What happens if he misses the ball and nails her hand or arm?

This should not be acceptable!

Again, why? What makes touching the ball from the coaching box flagrant?

No. So?

I don't know, but that's a completely different situation. We don't need to address it here, do we?

Of course it's not acceptable. So T him up.

Again, I'm just asking. What's the basis for considering this flagrant?

If I had the game, I, too, would eject the coach.

I look at at like this: He is violating TWO different parts of rule 10-4. First, by making contact with a player on the court, I would say this constitutes entering the court without being beckoned by an official. Second, he is committing an unsporting foul by impeding the progress of a player on the floor.

I'm not saying this is correct, I'm just saying what my line of thinking is.

I'm with Chuck, I just "T" the coach for an unsportsmanlike act. Why eject? It's not like he started a fight or something that serious.

Z

I think this is a flagrant unsportsmanlike foul. It exceeds all bounds of what a coach can or should do.

It is an ejection, and he would finish this game from the locker room and here in Utah (at least high school) he would be absent from the next one too.

Throw him out and do everything you can to insure his team does not win, 2 Ts.

In my mind, this is very similiar to the 6th player jumping in and blocking a shot/fouling an opponent that came up previously.

Coaches coach, players play, and officials officiate and don't mix those up. We all know that coaches will try officiating, who'd of thunk they would try playing too?

I'd call it "making a travesty of the game." In my opinion, any coach that would ever even consider pulling a stunt like this should never enter a gym again. I would do anything in my power to make that happen. Around here, if you T a coach, but don't toss him, you don't even have to file a report! This is completely within the bounds of tossing. In my opinion.

I see this like Sam does. Very much like the 6th player coming in at the last second.

While it's probably not an automatic toss for me, I'm going to strongly consider based on several factors (game situation, violator's body language, etc.)

The more I think about it, the more I lean towards an automatic toss.

Adam

Hey, I don't like the coaches actions anymore the rest of you. However, I don't see where the rules support ejection. His actions don't come under the definition of "flagrant" and I think it's a big stretch to give two technicals for one action.

Z

Rule 4-19-4 says a flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or saveage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct.

You don't think reaching out into the playing area and knocking the ball out of a players hands is not unacceptable conduct?

I certainly think his actions do come under the definition of flagrant. 4-19-4 "... A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. ..."

Since the coach did not touch the player, and the coach is a nonplayer, I have a foul by a nonplayer, which 4-19-5a says is a technical foul and since I consider illegally interfering with the game unacceptable conduct to me it meets the above definition of flagrant. He's gone.

Ask yourself this, what would you do to a random fan who did this as he walked by the court? I don't think any of us would hesitate to have the fan removed from the gym. Why? Because that conduct is unacceptable.

I cannot believe that this is even a debate, it's a no brainer. The coach deliberately interfered with the play of the game physically, he's gone, no debate and the guy undergo a serious evaluation of whether he should ever coach again. One flagrant T, coach is gone, period.

Uh, Chuck, I think you just said it right there.

I'm speaking as a coach, not an official, but... this kind of action by a coach on the floor is <b>totally unacceptable</b>. The coach (term used lightly) should be tossed for doing something so stupid. Problem is, with so little time left in the game, the tossing isn't punitive enough. Anyway to carry it over to another game? This type of behavior really makes my blood boil.

The language of unacceptable applies here. While I appreciate everyone's thoroughness in this great forum, I just don't see a lot of gray or fuzziness in this case. What would you do if the coach snatched the whistle out of your mouth as you ran past him?

[Edited by PGCougar on Sep 22nd, 2004 at 07:49 AM]

OhioHSAA rules regarding ejections for unsportsmanlike conduct are as follows:

Example: A varsity coach is sitting on the bench of a freshmen game which is the first game of a freshmen, jr. varsity, varsity tripleheader.

1) The person ejected is disqualified for all competition the rest of the day. That means the varsity coach stays in the lockerroom for the rest of the freshmen game as well as all of the jr. varsity and varsity games.

2) First ejection of the season: Two game suspension at the level of the ejection with the suspension starting with the next day of competition. The varsity coach in our example is suspended from coaching freshmen, jr. varsity, and varsity games, until the freshmen team has played two games. That means if the varsity team plays four game before the freshmen plays two games, the varsity coach is out for those four varsity games.

3) Second ejection of the season, the player or coach is suspended for the rest of the season. If it is a coach that is ejected, the coach and his principal gets to have a personal face-to-face meeting with the Commissioner in his office in Columbus, and you can bet dollars to donuts that is not a automobile ride one, who is a coach, wants to have with his principal. If it is the last game of the season, the OhioHSAA determines player or coach's penalty and the penalty will be imposed during the next sport in which either participate.

So at least in Ohio, even if the ejection is late in the game, the penalties can be very severe.

Lots of things are unacceptable conduct. Standing up and yelling at the officials is unacceptable conduct. Staring at an official with the "evil eye" while a player is being removed for the 5th foul is unacceptable conduct. A coach who reaches out and touches the ball is unacceptable conduct. I just don't agree that it's flagrant. It's unsportsmanlike (and stupid) and it's a technical foul.

Z

You guys are all hanging your hat on the part of the "flagrant" rule that says "unacceptable". But isn't any infraction of the rules unacceptable? We don't accept kids traveling, we don't accept kids rolling the ball away from the official. But those things aren't flagrant. The first is a simple violation. The second is a simple technical for delay.

Even more to the point, if a coach curses at you, says "Aw, that was a BS call!", that's unacceptable behavior. Are you gonna toss him for that? I sincerely hope not, at least at the HS level or above.

You guys all stopped reading the definition too soon. Yes, it says "unacceptable" behavior, but read further and it tells you what makes it flagrant: "If technical, it [the flagrant foul] involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persistent, vulgar or abusive conduct." (4-19-4)

Can you really tell me that this coach's action was extreme, persistent, vulgar, or abusive? I don't think you can.

So my question (I'm not even trying to make a point here, I'm just asking) is, what makes this action of touching a live ball while it's being dribbled inbounds FLAGRANT? If all you can tell me is that it's unacceptable, I don't think that's good enough, personally.

I would disagree with that, Sam. In that case, the extra player interfered and prevented a legitimate attempt to win (or tie) the game by the other team. In this case, it's the losing coach who interferes. He's not changing the course of the game. He's just frustrated and does something stupid.

This is the only reply that actually addresses my question, in my opinion. If a coach touching the ball makes a travesty of the game, then I agree that action should be taken. So the question is "Is it a travesty?" I guess I could be convinced, although i'm not convinced yet. And unfortunately, if we agree that it is a travesty, then the penalty is not ejection, it's a forfeit (5-4).

So, what you're telling us is that in your opinion a coach who steals the ball from a player during the game has not exhibited extreme behavior?

I'm not telling you anything. I'm just asking a question, remember?

But since you're asking a question, too, I'll answer it. The coach's action is "extreme"ly unusual, but the action itself (striking the ball) is not extreme, no. Striking the player would be extreme. Throwing a chair is extreme. Those things are nowhere near the same level as knocking the ball away from the dribbler, IMO.

Extremely unusual behavior is not extreme?

Kinda like oral sex aint sex?

Extremely unusual behavior is not extreme?

Kinda like oral sex aint sex?
[/B][/QUOTE]Tsk, tsk, tsk.....

Another interesting thread degenerates into sophmoric hijinks!

Question: "How do you know if Monica Lewinsky was the head intern?"
Answer: "She had dirt on her knees"?

Bwahahaha.....

The calling official's judgement. Nothing more and nothing less than that- the same as most any other flagrant foul call.

Call it what you think it should be, and tell anybody that questions you to kiss your butt(except for assignors, evaluators, etc. of course). :D

No, it's not. It's simply unusual. Touching the ball (which is all the coach did) is not extreme. If I had a beer down at the pub with you at the end of the day at camp, that would be unusual. Extremely unusual. Unheard of. I haven't had a beer in about 15 years. Does that make my action extreme? Hardly. Just because you don't see something everyday doesn't mean that it's extreme when it does happen.

I know that I stated at the beginning of this thread that I would eject the coach for his actions and that Chuck does not think that ejection is required. Some of the posts since Chuck's while not personal in nature are kind of over the top in defending the position of ejecting the coach in this situation.

In this situation, my first inclination would be to eject, but I also believe that Chuck's position can be defended. It is my opinion that this is really a "you had to be there and see it" situation before the decision to eject or not to eject can be made. My own inclination would be to not eject if it were bench personel other that a coach (head or assistant) and to eject if it were a coach (head or assistant). It is a terrible act no matter who commits it, but coaches need to be held to a higher standard of conduct because they are to be leading by example.

MTD, Sr.

True enough. But let's make sure that people have a legitimate basis for making the judgment. Any contact foul depends on the official's judgment, but the official must know that parameters of what constitutes a foul before s/he can judge whether the action fits into those parameters.

I'm just trying to find out if people really think this coach's actions fit into the parameters of "extreme, repeated, vulgar or abusive".

First you call the coach's behavior extremely unusual, now you call it simply unusual, and then you close by saying your extremely unusual behavior is not...uhmmm...extreme...???

You getting strategy advice from the Kerry campaign?

Speaking of politics, what's the difference between Bill Clinton and a screwdriver?

A screwdriver turns in screws, and Clinton screws interns.

And here's something else I found on the internet, a particular definition of EXTREME which you might like to look at:

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-...1&word=extreme

I don't know about where you are, but where I am a coach that knocks the ball away from the dribbler is certainly "far beyond a norm in quantity or amount or degree".

I completely agree with this statement. If a player had done this then I would probably only have a T and continue on with the game. This would depend on the situation. When a coach does it then IMO it should be an automatic ejection.

Why is throwing a chair (onto the court not at players) anymore extreme then a coach stealing the ball from a player? If a coach threw a chair in the backcourt and the players are in the front court then it hasn't directly effected the play. I guess I don't understand why you think throwing a chair is anymore extreme then a coach stealing a live ball.

In my game, the coach or any assistant that deliberately interferes with the game is getting first dibs on the shower.

If the coach reached over the sideline and deflected a pass instead, would all the Judge Roy Bean's throw him out too? That's interfering with a live ball also, isn't it, and it really isn't that much different that the original play, is it?. Just wondering.

Shut up hippy.

That's the problem with people today...too damn permissive!

And get off my lawn!!!

Lah me! Banned from the lawn. Again.

Didn't we have a thread a l'il while ago about a coach standing on the sideline- still in his coaching box, and then touching a pass coming up the sidelines? Wasn't the argument then between dem that wanted a "T" and dose that just wanted a violation? I don't remember anyone really advocating running the coach's a$$. Except for you, of course. Or is my memory failing me again. Just seems to me that there really ain't that much difference in HOW you interfere.

Actually I don't have a horse in this race, I was just trying to run Chuck for stirring this up again just as it was starting to die down.

And I want you to stay the heck off my lawn.

But since you ask, this poor b@stard (the coach, not you) is probably so wound up & frustrated already I would not want to take him out of his misery by offering an early exit.

So put me down for a T.

I think the difference was the previous case is that the ball came right by the coach on a pass and he/she, perhaps reflexively, touched the ball. I would not think of running the coach in that case.

In this case, the coach reached out into the floor and slapped the ball away from a player who had control of the ball.

Those are two very different animals. There is no reason or excuse for the latter.

The coach basically poked the ball away. He simply touched the ball. That happens hundreds of time per game. A thrown chair happens once every couple of decades at the most.

Throwing a chair is in itself a more overt act and certainly more aggressive, regardless of whether it is thrown at someone or not. (Just ask the lady that got hit in the face last week.)

If we can't agree that throwing a chair is extreme and pushing the ball is not extreme, then we are living in "separate worlds" and should go our "separate ways" (with apologies to Steve Perry and Journey) because any further conversation is probably pointless.

On to another part of this argument, what mechanic do you use if it is flagrant? The cross and toss? I've never seen a coach tossed for a flagrant so I'm unclear on what to do mechanically.
As far as tossing him, for me it would depend somewhat on how he was behaving the rest of the game. His actions are absolutely an automatic T, but if he's been a problem all night, it very well could be thought of as flagrant and you can send him and the parents and team he represents a message by getting rid of him. Just my opinion.

No cross. Just the toss. The "cross" is the signal for an intentional foul, not a flagrant foul.

There is no actual signal for a flagrant foul. If you don't wanna use a signal like the baseball toss, you can just verbally tell the coach that he's toast. Or maybe you can make up your own signal; wave "bye-bye" at him or something. :D

That's fine, I guess you had to be there to see it. It shocked me more than if he were to throw a chair onto the court. I guess in that regards it was extremely unusual. I still feel that it's an automatic ejection, unless my assigner told me different.

Can you really tell me that this coach's action was extreme, persistent, vulgar, or abusive?

I don't know...ask the girl's father, who's sitting in the stands, watching a grown man knock the ball out of his precious little girls hands.

Late...

Oh now there's a good source to back up an argument. Some kid's father. Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Z

Oh...I didn't tell ya...that girl's father was the official for the next game!

When did Woody Hayes become a basketball coach?

I vote for immediate ejection, as flagrant unsportsmanlike conduct. The coach can't think he's a player in a girl's game. To me, this is the same as a cornerman tossing in the towel in a boxing match. He wants out of the game, so grant his wish. Next thing you know, the coach will be tripping someone running by, maybe me. See ya!

This is a delicate situation to say the least. My personal opinion is this. I feel that this should be just called a direct technical foul on the coach for unsportsmanlike conduct and NOT an ejection.

You are in the closing seconds of a ballgame and the technical is going to give the other team 2 shots and the ball at the division line opposite the table. This penalty alone is going to upset the coach and he is going to have some choice words for you and I dont think this is severe enough to warrant the ejection.

Now if the coach already has been assessed a direct technical foul in the game or two indirect technicals for something earlier in the game, and then you call this technical foul, he or she is ejected and must sit out the next two contests. (by NC rules)

As for the coach tripping someone running by, he will get a wave bye bye from me, because he is gone, that would constitute the immmediate ejection. I would be more than happy to go through the paperwork for this ejection.


[Edited by ncref on Sep 23rd, 2004 at 02:15 AM]

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..."

What Dan said. That's basically what I was trying to get across. When you're doing this ballgame, and the coach pulls something like that, none of us round-butted l'il second guessers sitting comfortably here in front of our computers really has any idea at all of the different factors surrounding the call. We don't know what the kids and coaches have been up to before this happened, what kind of person the coach is, whether the game was outa sight, etc., etc. The official on the spot has to factor all these things in, then make up his/her mind as to what to do in about...oh...2 seconds or so, and then act decisively and authoratively enough to keep the game under control. That's tough enough to do without worrying about whether anybody else is gonna agree with what you did or question your call. As Dan said, t'hell with them. You're the one on the spot. Call what you feel comfortable with, and don't second-guess yourself. There is no "magic" call in these situations- just do what YOU think is the right thing. You got to have faith in yourself.