case 10.5.1 Sit C

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Personally, I don't think that coaches go to the table to complain.

Actually, I find that coaches (and others) often complain to me about things at the table. (many of which I cannot control)
The arrow is wrong. He's starting the clock late. etc.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Where did I say "it's always bad when the coach goes to the table"?

I said, "Nothing good can come from a coach going to the table."

That doesn't mean someone is going to get killed.

Where did I say, "Someone's going to get killed"?

Why should he need to go to the table for other than a correctable error? If he has an issue, he should approach an official or have a stat person or team manager go to the table.

If the stat guy can go to the table, then why not let the coach?

The NFHS doesn't want coaches going to the table. That fact is very evident.

Agreed. I just don't think your original comment addresses WHY they don't (which is what the original poster was asking, after all).

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Actually, I find that coaches (and others) often complain to me about things at the table. (many of which I cannot control)
The arrow is wrong. He's starting the clock late. etc.

I agree. And I think that would continue to be the case (complaining to us -- and NOT complaining to the table) if the coach were allowed to check personally. I could be wrong. I just don't think it would be as big a problem as others seem to think.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Actually, I find that coaches (and others) often complain to me about things at the table. (many of which I cannot control)
The arrow is wrong. He's starting the clock late. etc.

Well, ultimately we all do lose control of these things at one time or another, but we should control them. It's very important for us to know that these things are correct all the time, and to fix them if they're not. That's part of our job. And it's proper for the coach to complain to you, not the table, if there's a problem.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

However, if it weren't against the rules, I don't think very many bad things would happen by allowing the coach to be at the table briefly to check something in the book.

I disagree. It's way, way too easy for the table person(proved by the home team, after all) to be hired, trained and supervised by the head coach and thus for the influence to be way too intense, even when there's no intention for it to be so. Furthermore, I've seen coaches attempt to manipulate the table person into change something, perhaps with the best intentions, but still incorrectly. If there's a problem with something in the book or on the scoreboard, there are appropriate channels for correcting that, and they don't include the coach being at the table. I really like this rule and think it's best for everyone.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If the stat guy can go to the table, then why not let the coach?


Agreed. I just don't think your original comment addresses WHY they don't (which is what the original poster was asking, after all).

There was a POE on this several years ago. Our state rep was on the rules committee that year. He stated that coaches were creating problems when going to the table. They were distracting the table crew during live ball play. Thye were getting angry at the table officials when they didn't like whatever the issue was. And that is why he told us the rule was in place.

If you don't agree with me that the NFHS doesn't want coaches at the table, then please tell me why the rule exists.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I disagree. It's way, way too easy for the table person(proved by the home team, after all) to be hired, trained and supervised by the head coach and thus for the influence to be way too intense, even when there's no intention for it to be so. Furthermore, I've seen coaches attempt to manipulate the table person into change something, perhaps with the best intentions, but still incorrectly. If there's a problem with something in the book or on the scoreboard, there are appropriate channels for correcting that, and they don't include the coach being at the table. I really like this rule and think it's best for everyone.

Touche'

[Splute]

I appreciate all the discussion. It seems there is some passion on both sides and it has helped me to understand from your points of view. Yes, the rule is the rule. My thoughts were towards, why would this rule be needed during T.Os and Intermissions.... No doubt there have been situations in games that this rule allows additional control over the coach, to avoid more extreme situtations. By making the coaching box restraints absolute, there should not be any inconsistency with treatment of coaches or their actions (if it is truly enforced by all). Perhaps that is needed or perhaps it is a copout for administration not enforcing the Coaches code of conduct. Thanks for your thoughts.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

He stated that coaches were creating problems when going to the table. They were distracting the table crew during live ball play. Thye were getting angry at the table officials when they didn't like whatever the issue was.

And you're thinking that statisticians, or team managers, couldn't also distract the table during a live ball? Here's my point. If we're going to allow somebody to go to the table, why not the head coach as well? The head coach isn't going to be MORE of a distraction. After all, during a live ball, he/she is going to want to get back to coaching the team as quickly as possible.

If you don't agree with me that the NFHS doesn't want coaches at the table, then please tell me why the rule exists.

Perhaps you didn't read my previous post. When you stated:

The NFHS doesn't want coaches going to the table. That fact is very evident.

I replied:

Agreed.

The issue is not the rule, nor has it ever been in this thread. The issue is the rationale for that rule.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

After all, during a live ball, he/she is going to want to get back to coaching the team as quickly as possible.

I see that a number of your points are worth considering, but this one is interesting. A lot of coaches don't seem to be even remotely interested in "getting back to coaching", not just in going-to-the-table situations, but other times as well. I've seen a coach who was so busy screaming at the refs that he didn't even see their own players make a great steal and break-away lay-up. Not even remotely interested in coaching.

Hhmmm... looking over this post, and my last one, perhaps the moral to the story is that I need to work to get better games, where coaches are actually more interested in the game itself.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I see that a number of your points are worth considering, but this one is interesting. A lot of coaches don't seem to be even remotely interested in "getting back to coaching", not just in going-to-the-table situations, but other times as well. I've seen a coach who was so busy screaming at the refs that he didn't even see their own players make a great steal

Hmmm. this would have been a terrific time for a game-interrupter.

Originally Posted by rainmaker

and break-away lay-up. Not even remotely interested in coaching.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

And you're thinking that statisticians, or team managers, couldn't also distract the table during a live ball? Here's my point. If we're going to allow somebody to go to the table, why not the head coach as well? The head coach isn't going to be MORE of a distraction. After all, during a live ball, he/she is going to want to get back to coaching the team as quickly as possible.

Ihave never seen a team manager get mad and yell at the table.

I've seen coaches get made and yell at the table before.

Yes, that is more of a distraction than a team manager would be.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

The issue is the rationale for that rule.

I asked you to "please tell me why the rule exists."

That means, what do you think the rationale behind the rule is? It doesn't mean that you have to agree with it. I just asked your take on "the rational for the rule.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Hmmm. this would have been a terrific time for a game-interrupter.

Yip. And I asked the ref about it at half-time. He said he didn't want to take it away from the girl. He whacked the coach shortly afterward. BTW, a dad (the girl's? I dont know) was all over the coach about not seeing that play. Furthermore, that was the coach's last year at that school. So I hope he learned his lessons.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

So yes, boys and girls, it's bad -- very very bad -- for a head coach to be at the scorer's table, except in very rare and well-defined situations. However, if it weren't against the rules, I don't think very many bad things would happen by allowing the coach to be at the table briefly to check something in the book.

Yup, that's all I was saying. And that I can agree with(fwiw) . If a coach was OK to go the table, we'd still treat each incident on it's own merits. If the coach was there for information, etc., fine--as long as he/she wasn't distracting table personnel from doing their duties. If the coach was at the table to work us or annoy anyone at the table, we handle it the same way as if he was in his box.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

After all, during a live ball, he/she is going to want to get back to coaching the team as quickly as possible..

As an interesting side to this statement, I was a spectator at a recent girls JV summer league game. The coach was not only at the table, he used it to lean on while he ate his sandwich during the game when he wasn't yelling at his team.

I think he missed a lot of the game.