Theory and Practice

Nevadaref · #1 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 02:54am

I had my first opportunity to put one of my latest theories into practice last night.
For those who don't know, the conjecture is that if the head coach gets disqualified, whoever runs the team in his absence not only doesn't have a coaching box, but also doesn't have the right to request a time-out. All time-out requests from that team must now come from a player since they no longer have a head coach just an assistant running things.

Well, each of my partners in a three-whistle GV game T'd the home coach and he got the gate with 2:44 remaining in the 4th quarter. The second T was for standing up and coaching after receiving the first T. The young lady who took over for him couldn't have been more than 22. She was trying so hard that I just didn't have the heart to ignore her TO requests. They even came from six down to tie the game with 8 seconds remaining, but one confused little girl fouled in the backcourt anyway probably still believing that they were behind. The opponents sank two and won.

How spineless of me, huh?

Jurassic Referee · #2 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 03:03am

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I had my first opportunity to put one of my latest theories into practice last night.
For those who don't know, the conjecture is that if the head coach gets disqualified, whoever runs the team in his absence not only doesn't have a coaching box, but also doesn't have the right to request a time-out. All time-out requests from that team must now come from a player since they no longer have a head coach just an assistant running things.

How spineless of me, huh?

Theories? Conjectures?

It's not really spineless not to call something when the only basis that you have for making that call in the first place is your own personal "theory" or "conjecture". Jmo.

zebraman · #3 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 03:12am

I can understand not letting the "new" coach get coaching box privileges, but why would you want to deny the "new" coach the opportunity to call a time-out? I think you did the right thing by being "spineless."

Z

Nevadaref · #4 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 05:55am

Quote:

Originally posted by BushRef

Quote:

Originally posted by zebraman
I can understand not letting the "new" coach get coaching box privileges, but why would you want to deny the "new" coach the opportunity to call a time-out?
Z

How bout cause that's the rule?!?! The rule book reserves that privilege for the HEAD coach, and if he gets run, the ASSistant still does not become the HEAD coach.

Yes, in more polite terms, that is my interpretation of 5-8-3, but I've stated that on this forum before.

Nevadaref · #5 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 06:32am

Should I have said less vulgar terms?

And I always try to be polite on the forum even when I have disagreements with others.
I purposely phrased this as "my theory" because so many people disagreed with my interpretation the last time that I posted it.

PS TWO FEET of snow here now, and still coming down!

Jimgolf · #6 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 09:24am

Where does it say that the assistant doesn't get promoted?

Nevadaref · #7 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 09:41am

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimgolf
Where does it say that the assistant doesn't get promoted?

Where does it say that the assistant gets promoted?

lrpalmer3 · #8 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 10:33am

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref
She was trying so hard that I just didn't have the heart to ignore her TO requests.
How spineless of me, huh?

Spineless, yes, because she probably deserved another T for standing to request this time out. I assume that she was standing because you said she was "trying hard."

thumpferee · #9 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 10:46am

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimgolf
Where does it say that the assistant doesn't get promoted?

Where does it say that the assistant gets promoted?

Where does it say he doesn't? The AC not only resumes the responsibilities of the HC for this game, but also the next game.

If there is a correctable error situation, you would not allow the coach his request? Would you allow him to make substitutions?

How about if a member of his team who is bench personel gets T'd up, does the AC not get an indirect because he is the AC?

lrpalmer3 · #10 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 10:48am

All good questions, but I'm sure he/they will not be convinced.

Mark Dexter · #11 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 11:54am

Quote:

Originally posted by lrpalmer3

Spineless, yes, because she probably deserved another T for standing to request this time out. I assume that she was standing because you said she was "trying hard."

Even without a coaching box, the coach (not getting into the head/asst. arguement) is allowed to stand to request a timeout, among other things (see 10-5-1).

gordon30307 · #12 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 12:10pm

There's a concept called the "Spirit of the Rule" Why would you not allow the assistant coach who now is running the team call a time out? Also the second Tee for standing and coaching his players with 2:44 left in a game while correct by rule is not worth it IMO. If one of my partners did it I would of course support them. Now if the Coach stood up and berated me or my partners then I would Tee him. However, once I've asked him to sit down and if he gave me a hard time or he got up again then I would Tee him.

As my Daddy said to me: "Don't look for trouble. Trouble will find you"

[Edited by gordon30307 on Dec 31st, 2004 at 12:20 PM]

zebraman · #13 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 12:13pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BushRef

Quote:

Originally posted by zebraman
I can understand not letting the "new" coach get coaching box privileges, but why would you want to deny the "new" coach the opportunity to call a time-out?
Z

How bout cause that's the rule?!?! The rule book reserves that privilege for the HEAD coach, and if he gets run, the ASSistant still does not become the HEAD coach.

That may be your interpretation, but it certainly isn't mine.... and I don't think your interpretation reflects the spirit of the rule. The new coach most certainly can call a time-out in my game. To do otherwise is looking for trouble and being overly officious IMHO.

Z

JRutledge · #14 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 12:28pm

Quote:

Originally posted by zebraman

Quote:

Originally posted by BushRef

Quote:

Originally posted by zebraman
I can understand not letting the "new" coach get coaching box privileges, but why would you want to deny the "new" coach the opportunity to call a time-out?
Z

How bout cause that's the rule?!?! The rule book reserves that privilege for the HEAD coach, and if he gets run, the ASSistant still does not become the HEAD coach.

That may be your interpretation, but it certainly isn't mine.... and I don't think your interpretation reflects the spirit of the rule. The new coach most certainly can call a time-out in my game. To do otherwise is looking for trouble and being overly officious IMHO.

Z

I cannot speak for anyone else. This was asked of someone from our area to give an interpretation. It was made clear that the officials should allow the AC all the privileges of the HC if they were ejected. I really couldn't care less what someone says about this on an internet site. It makes for an interesting conversation, but it is based on nothing.

Peace

paxsonref · #15 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 31, 2004, 12:30pm

was the coach tossed for simply standing and coaching? or was there some complaining and whining involved as well?
I'd have a tough time tossing someone who simply stood up, especially in a close game. . . a simple reminder that the coach must stay seated would be warranted IMO, followed by a T if they continued to ignore the reminder.