case 10.5.1 Sit C

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by PYRef

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 hope it was an egg salad sandwich he got out of a vending machine that hadn't been plugged in for a couple of days. YUCCHHHH!!!

[just another ref]

I don't have a problem with this rule, but I don't think it is a big deal either way.
Coaches often communicate with the table while safely in the box. "HEY! HOW MANY FOULS DOES HE HAVE?"

[Back In The Saddle]

While I find the discussion interesting, how many are likely to call this? Just being out of the box doesn't get consistent enforcement. This seems like a potentially more volatile situation.

It seems like another heavy-handed attempt to fix in committee what some officials won't fix on the floor. And, like most such attempts, it will be mostly ignored, and cause problems when it isn't. Those officials who would have taken care of business mostly (IMHO) don't want the NFHS telling them when and how to take care of it. Those officials who wouldn't take care of business without the rule, likely won't take care of business even with it. A few unfortunate souls will call a T on this because they are supposed to, and it's not likely to go well for them.

BTW, in all my few years, I have very rarely ever had a problem with a coach at the table. First, they rarely go there. Second, when they do, there is usually a problem that needs addressing, and I go address it. Perhaps things work a little differently in the Carolinas.