The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2007, 11:13am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
That's easy. Coaches are restricted to the bench area and the coaching box, even during timeouts. The rule is clear that they can only go to the table for a possible correctable error. The coach can send a statistician to find out anything he needs to know for any other reason.

Yes, I would.

Nothing good can come from the coach going to the scorer's table.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2007, 11:29am
certified Hot Mom tester
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: only in my own mind, such as it is
Posts: 12,918
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Nothing good can come from the coach going to the scorer's table.
Amen, brother.
__________________
Yom HaShoah
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2007, 12:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deer Park, TX
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
That's easy. Coaches are restricted to the bench area and the coaching box, even during timeouts. The rule is clear that they can only go to the table for a possible correctable error. The coach can send a statistician to find out anything he needs to know for any other reason.

Yes, I would.

Nothing good can come from the coach going to the scorer's table.
Hum, sounds like the voice of experience Yes I agree it is the rule. Based on your last sentence, I will gather that is more the reason for the rule rather than what the rule book offers to explain this one. As I read thru the rule books this one stuck out in my head as one that didnt add anything to the game.... perhaps it is more inclined to what it can allow to take away. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2007, 01:42pm
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hell
Posts: 20,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Nothing good can come from the coach going to the scorer's table.
And that's exactly why the FED implemented the rule.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2007, 08:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,033
FYI the NCAA rule is a bit different.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2007, 09:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deer Park, TX
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
FYI the NCAA rule is a bit different.
Okay you tweeked my interest. Let me see if I can google the rule.....
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2007, 09:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splute
Okay you tweeked my interest. Let me see if I can google the rule.....
tweaked or piqued. Just saying...
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2007, 09:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deer Park, TX
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainmaker
tweaked or piqued. Just saying...
Interesting... well I intended the spelling to be "tweeked", working on the "eeked" portion, slight inflated voice. I did forget that we have a well versed group here. Yes tweaked is the correct spelling and I suppose the true definition doesnt apply; except maybe in the southern phrase of getting someone's attention aroused, but not in a resentful means as pique would suggest. very quip rainmaker, I needed a smile, thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2007, 09:48pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 9,466
Send a message via AIM to rainmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splute
, but not in a resentful means as pique would suggest. very quip rainmaker, I needed a smile, thanks.
pique /pik/ Pronunciation Key [peek] verb, piqued, piqu·ing
–verb (used with object)
1. to affect with sharp irritation and resentment, esp. by some wound to pride: She was greatly piqued when they refused her invitation.
2. to wound (the pride, vanity, etc.).
3. to excite (interest, curiosity, etc.): Her curiosity was piqued by the gossip.

Your interest was piqued as in excited, not piqued as in resented. But I gotta admit, I like using tweek with the emphasis on EEK!! definitely got the sound that you intended!

Last edited by rainmaker; Sat Oct 06, 2007 at 09:52pm.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sat Oct 06, 2007, 09:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deer Park, TX
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
FYI the NCAA rule is a bit different.
If I found the correct rule, the coach IS allowed to approach the scores table during a TO or Intermission in NCAA... Rule 10 section 11 art. 3a
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 07, 2007, 01:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splute
If I found the correct rule, the coach IS allowed to approach the scores table during a TO or Intermission in NCAA... Rule 10 section 11 art. 3a
Yep, and really I don't see why the NFHS doesn't allow that. Time-outs and intermissions are breaks that a coach gets to instruct his team, if he wants to waste that time by being over at the table obtaining information isn't that his loss?
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 07, 2007, 11:31am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Deer Park, TX
Posts: 502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Yep, and really I don't see why the NFHS doesn't allow that. Time-outs and intermissions are breaks that a coach gets to instruct his team, if he wants to waste that time by being over at the table obtaining information isn't that his loss?
Those were some of my original thoughts when I read the NFHS rule. It seems they want us to "tech" the coach for everything. I am sure these constraints came about for good reason. It just seems illogical to me.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 07, 2007, 01:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Yep, and really I don't see why the NFHS doesn't allow that. Time-outs and intermissions are breaks that a coach gets to instruct his team, if he wants to waste that time by being over at the table obtaining information isn't that his loss?
Because nothing good can come from a copach going to the table. If it's not for a correctable error, then he's likely going to complain about soemthing.

AHEM!!!! DON'T YOU AGREE!?!?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by msavakinas
personally i would use preventive officiating and just tell the coach to get his a$$ back in the box where he's allowed. no reason to tech him up here.
How many times are you going to tell him to do that? Once? Twice? Ten times?
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 07, 2007, 05:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
That's easy. Coaches are restricted to the bench area and the coaching box, even during timeouts. The rule is clear that they can only go to the table for a possible correctable error. The coach can send a statistician to find out anything he needs to know for any other reason.

Yes, I would.

Nothing good can come from the coach going to the scorer's table.
would finding out how many fouls a player has count as non-correctable-error information seeking that could be trouble? What about a road team with limited staff (i.e. just one coach, no statistician, no assistants). I don't think its a black and white issue of coach at scorers table = bad. but for the most part, i do agree that coaches shouldn't loiter at the scorers table and that most coaches that do end up there are up to no good, so keeping them away as much as possible (with some common sense discretion) is best.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 07, 2007, 06:22pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Y2Koach
would finding out how many fouls a player has count as non-correctable-error information seeking that could be trouble? What about a road team with limited staff (i.e. just one coach, no statistician, no assistants). I don't think its a black and white issue of coach at scorers table = bad. but for the most part, i do agree that coaches shouldn't loiter at the scorers table and that most coaches that do end up there are up to no good, so keeping them away as much as possible (with some common sense discretion) is best.
I agree with some common sense discretion a coach can get the information they seek without going to the table. i.e. from the coaching box he or she can communicate with the table. How many fouls does # 10 have or ask the player themselves. If a team travels with limitations then the coach should be aware of his or her limitiation as well. JMO.

Why should the officials have to compensate for shortcomings?
__________________
truerookie
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Case 6.3.2 rwest Basketball 8 Thu Oct 28, 2004 04:04pm
Just in case vincebradford'sboy71 Basketball 26 Wed Jan 21, 2004 12:06am
case 8.3.1 A biglaz Baseball 3 Thu Mar 27, 2003 01:51pm
Who is out in this case ? Mrhappybigpants Softball 3 Fri Jul 26, 2002 05:07pm
ASA case oppool Softball 6 Wed Feb 14, 2001 11:11pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1