Sideline Warning?--IHSA Rules Meeting

[JRutledge]

I just got back from our state rule meeting. There is an interesting way to handle a coaching box infraction. Our state decided that we would have a "warning" for the first time we see a coach out of the coaching box. Then the next infraction of the coaching box would be a technical foul. Now this "warning" would not apply if a coach is berating an official. The warning would apply if the coach is wandering outside of the box. This was described as a "sideline warning" as used in football. I thought this was very interesting way to handle the coaching box. Now this was not something I just heard talked about, it was in the IHSA PowerPoint Presentation.

What do you guys think about this way to handle coaching box issues?

Peace

[ChuckElias]

That's part of the FED's POE's this season. They outline the same procedure. It's good in theory, but I'm curious to see if it works out that well in practice.

[BktBallRef]

Here's a different spin.

Our local booking agent is tired of coaches calling and saying they weren't warned before they got a T. So, we're now going to have the scorer record a formal warning in the score book when we give the stop sign and tell the coach, "I've heard enough." We will also inform the opposing bench and our partners, so that a coach doesn't get multiple warnings.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
That's part of the FED's POE's this season. They outline the same procedure. It's good in theory, but I'm curious to see if it works out that well in practice.

Where did you find that? I do not see anything that suggest given an official warning (put in the scorebook) for a coaching box infraction. Either I missed something or I cannot find the reference for this application of the rule.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
That's part of the FED's POE's this season. They outline the same procedure. It's good in theory, but I'm curious to see if it works out that well in practice.

Chuck, there's no mention of a "warning" anywhere in the POE.

The POE sez "Head coaches have the responsibility to remain in the box. School administrators must support that by demanding they do so(giggle-added by me ). When violated , the official must enforce the rule with a technical foul."

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
We will also inform the opposing bench and our partners, so that a coach doesn't get multiple warnings.

Why inform the opposing bench?!?

[tjones1]

I found it interesting too. The interesting thing is that they stated very clearly that if you don't address the problem, you probably won't get a post-season assignment.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by tjones1
I found it interesting too. The interesting thing is that they stated very clearly that if you don't address the problem, you probably won't get a post-season assignment.

The IHSA said a similar thing to football officials about enforcing sideline conduct with sideline warnings. They have made it clear to enforce these rules rather strictly or potential for the playoffs might be effected.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by JRutledge
Where did you find that? I do not see anything that suggest given an official warning (put in the scorebook) for a coaching box infraction.

Your initial post didn't say anything about the warning being recorded in the scorebook, so I didn't realize that's what you meant. But here's the FED's POE on the coaching box.

D. SPORTING BEHAVIOR -- COACHING BOX

• Coaches must stay in the coaching box.
• Wandering coaches creat problems:
  • distinct advantage gained by ability to better communicate wtih team
  • interferes with play
  • distracting to players and officials
  • perceived as an intimidation tactic toward officials and table personnel
  • can incite inappropriate player, bench and spectator behaviors
• Rule is black-and-white, but has not been dealt with preperly.
• Most officials ignore the rule because coaches are not "directing comments" to officials or are "just coaching the team."
• These situations should have no bearing on addressing the behavior.
• Coach is OUT of box "just coaching":
  • FIRST offense -- official should address the behavior by issuing a warning
  • NEXT offense -- assess a technical foul.
• Coach is IN or OUT of box behaving inappropriately (10-4):
  • FIRST offense -- a technical foul should be assessed.

I added the emphasis (and left out the last half of the POE), but it sure sounds the same as what you described in your initial post. If you meant that Illinois is going to add a written warning to the scorebook, then that's a different kettle of fish.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Why inform the opposing bench?!?

So that the opposing coach knows why the game was stopped. As long as there's no movement to the basket, we're supposed to stop the clock and have the warning recorded immediately.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Your initial post didn't say anything about the warning being recorded in the scorebook, so I didn't realize that's what you meant. But here's the FED's POE on the coaching box.

I added the emphasis (and left out the last half of the POE), but it sure sounds the same as what you described in your initial post. If you meant that Illinois is going to add a written warning to the scorebook, then that's a different kettle of fish.

Chuck, I just double-checked this year's rule book POE's. I also went to the NFHS web site and checked out the POE's that are issued on there. There is NO language anywhere that I can see that is even faintly similar to what you typed above. There is NO mention in the rule book or on the FED website saying that we should issue a warning of any kind.

Whereinheck are you reading your language?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 18th, 2005 at 09:15 AM]

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
There is NO mention in the rule book or on the FED website saying that we should issue a warning of any kind.

Whereinheck are you reading your language?

Sigh.

This was given to board interpreters at our state meeting. It has all the rule changes, major editorial changes, and looks for all the world as if it were pulled straight out of the rulebook.

It must be the MIAA's points of emphasis. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm so used to getting the FED proclamations from all of you guys. I guess I need to start assuming that whatever I get from the state is NOT associated with the FED. Again, sorry for causing confusion.

On the plus side, we seem to be pretty much in line with Illinois!

[JRutledge]

This is the information that we were given. It is just supposed to be recorded in the book. I did not read this "warning" anywhere else. I thought it was understood when I stated the "warning" to be put in the book somewhere, but I guess that was not very clear.

Either way it goes, we got the same information. I did not read this anywhere else but what I read or heard at this IHSA Rules Meeting.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Sigh.

This was given to board interpreters at our state meeting. It has all the rule changes, major editorial changes, and looks for all the world as if it were pulled straight out of the rulebook.

It must be the MIAA's points of emphasis. Sorry for the confusion.

I'm so used to getting the FED proclamations from all of you guys. I guess I need to start assuming that whatever I get from the state is NOT associated with the FED. Again, sorry for causing confusion.

On the plus side, we seem to be pretty much in line with Illinois!

Thanks for clearing that up.

Btw, the MIAA POE is completely different from the FED's in one particular way. The FED's POE went to great lengths to stress that there was no difference in whether the coach was "coaching" or yapping when he was out of the box. If s/he was out of the box for any reason, they wanted a T called.

Sample excerpts from the FED POE:
1)"It is a distinct advantage to the coach who is permitted to be out of the box because the coach has a better chance to communicate with his/her team".
2)"The fact that the coach is not directing comments to the officials or is 'coaching the team' has no bearing on rule enforcement".
3) "When violated, the officials MUST enforce the rule with a technical foul".

Having said that, I gotta tell you that we've already told our officials to follow basically the same procedure as the IHSA and MIAA have recommended--i.e a T if they're yapping and a warning first if they're just wandering. There's a l'il bit more common sense attached to that imo rather than issuing a T without a warning to a coach who might have innocently stepped outside their box.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Having said that, I gotta tell you that we've already told our officials to follow basically the same procedure as the IHSA and MIAA have recommended--i.e a T if they're yapping and a warning first if they're just wandering. There's a l'il bit more common sense attached to that imo rather than issuing a T without a warning to a coach who might have innocently stepped outside their box.

I know our state was contemplating taking away the coaching box all together. This I guess was a compromise to keep the box and handle those that violate the rule without yelling at the officials.

Peace