case 10.5.1 Sit C
 

The coach of Team A leaves the bench area and goes to the table to seek information other than a correctable error: (a) during a time-out: or (b) during the intermission between the first and second quarters. RULING: A technical foul is charged directly to the coach in both (a) and (b).
The final sentence in this paragraph trys to explain the reasoning behind this, but can anyone honestly tell me why a coach cannot inquire for this info during these instances, but anyone else can? Does / Would any of you enforce the tech if you saw the coach at the scorer's table during these instances?

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.

Amen, brother.

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

And that's exactly why the FED implemented the rule.

FYI the NCAA rule is a bit different.

Okay you tweeked my interest. Let me see if I can google the rule.....

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

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.

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!

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.

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!?!?! :D

How many times are you going to tell him to do that? Once? Twice? Ten times?

I always find it interesting that we like to give coaches, players etc. The benefit of the doubt when we have a personal reservation to a rule we do not particularly agree with. JMO.:cool:

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?

That's not a correctable error.

Then you tell an official and allow him to address it.

The coach has no business at the table.

JMO, but no, I don't agree if it's during a time out or at the quarter.

It really doesn't matter what anyone <b>thinks</b>, be they coach or official. The only thing that really matters in black and white is that coach at scorers table = technical foul.

I don't think Koach (or I) was commenting on the rule. He was addressing Bktballref's comment that seemed to say "coach at table = bad". I think (although I could easily be wrong) that Koach knows the rule at this point, and was merely disagreeing with the seemingly "black and white" judgment that it's always bad for the coach to be at the table.

Actually it is 10-4-4 under NCAA rules, and they allow a lot more leeway than the Fed.

NCAA 10-4-4d
A coach, team member or team attendant may leave the bench area at any time to point out a scoring or timing mistake, or to request a timeout to ascertain whether a correctable error needs to be rectified.


NCAA 10-4-4e
A coach or team attendant may leave the bench area to seek information from the official scorer or official timer during a timeout or an intermission.

Evidently the NFHS disagrees with both of you.

That assumes a lot.

Maybe the NFHS just doesn't want to force officials to judge the intent of the coach in those situations.

By rule, I agree with you that the coach is never allowed at the table. But in the real world, it's simply not true that it's always bad when the coach goes to the table.

BTW, a Styx reference? :)

Oh, does that mean that it's <b>good</b> that officials are ignoring plainly written rules? Or is it <b>good</b> that coaches are ignoring plainly written rules? Is it <b>good</b> that a coach is forcing an official to make a decision as to whether or not he/she should let the coach skate from what is supposed to be a no-brainer "T"? If not one those, please point me to where I can find the <b>good</b> side of any situation where a coach is discovered being at the scorers table illegally?

Sorry, Skippy, but any situation where a coach puts us in a position where we have to decide whether to follow a plainly written rule or not is <b>never</b> a <b>good</b> situation. And I say that noting that there are situations where I would rather see a discrete warning used in lieu of a "T".

In the real world, if you're doing an NCAA game and the coach is illegally out of the their coaching box, that wouldn't always be <b>bad</b> either, I take it?

Where the heck did this question come from?!?! Who is talking about ignoring the rule? Certainly not me!! I never said that any official should ignore the rule.

What I disagree with is Bktballref's blanket statement (and gross overgeneralization) that:

I just think this is false. Should he be whacked? Yes, because that's what the rule says. But to say that "nothing good" can possibly come from the coach being at the table is false in the real world.

(That's what you get for trying to post intelligently at 1:02 am. :p You should've been watching the end of "Field of Dreams" on AMC instead.)

I iterate...again...as opposed to reiterating.....

What possible <b>good</b> can come out of a coach being at the scorers table <b>illegally</b> in the real world?:confused:

The only way that I'd watch <b>Field of Dreams</b> again is if the corn burnt down in the fourth inning, taking all of the old goobers and Kevin Costner with it.

Ok, I see the reason for our misunderstanding. I'm sorry. This whole conversation started because somebody asked WHY the head coach can't approach the table (with some exceptions). The origninal poster asked:

I think Bktballref's comment (nothing good can come from it, he's just there to complain) was an attempt to answer that question. Personally, I don't think that coaches go to the table to complain. I think they normally go to check and/or verify something.

So my comment should've said, "If it weren't against the rules, I don't think there would be too many problems with coaches going to the table". Your comments were all made with the understandable assumption that the act itself was illegal and therefore bad. My comments were made with the assumption that we were talking about the actions at the table, rather than the coach breaking a rule to get to the table.

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.

Sorry for the confusion.

I think part of the basis for this rule is the expectation that if a coach continuously goes over to the table to "check on things" it might result in that coach asking the scorekeeper to "correct" stats and that the scorekeeper might think he's supposed to take direction on that from the coach.

Besides, the table crew has enough to concentrate on without being bugged all the time by coaches.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Touche'

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.

And you're thinking that statisticians, or team managers, couldn't also distract the table during a live ball? :confused: 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.

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

I replied:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!! http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...mages/puke.gif

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?"

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.

That is actually a permissible reason for a coach to go to the table per 10-5-2.

I agree with both of these posts and think that this is why there is a difference at the NCAA level.

Sitting behind the scorers table of a Varsity game where I have players that Ive coached in the past on both teams, I saw a coach, team down by 15 near the end of the 3rd quarter and star player picks up 4th foul, go storming to the table yelling "he only has 3!!!" Game is stopped for about 10-15 minutes as the coach is screaming about how he has a count in his head of how many fouls his star players have and keeps asking his player "you only fouled 3 times, right?" The refs, coach, star player, and the 16 year old home team stat girl have a nice long discussion that basically boiled down to:

coach: HE ONLY HAS 3 FOULS!!!
ref 1: calm down coach, lets check the book
coach: I KNOW HE ONLY HAS 3, I KEEP TRACK OF THESE THINGS!! YOU ONLY FOULED 3 TIMES, RIGHT??
player: i think so. yeah, i should have 3
coach: SEE!! HE SHOULD HAVE 3!!! WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE IN THE BOOK?!??!
stat girl: 4 coach
coach: HOW THE HELL DOES HE HAVE 4??!? HE ONLY HAS 3!!!
other coach: can we get this game going? and can you tell him to stop yelling at the young lady?
ref 2: we got this coach
coach: NO WAY HE HAS 4, HE HAS 3 FUC--- FRIGGIN FOULS!!!
ref 1: what do you have in the book?
stat girl: 4 fouls
ref 1: gotta go with the official book, coach
coach: ARE YOU SERIOUS??? THEYRE TRYING TO CHEAT!!! HE'S GOT 3!!!

etc, for a full 10-15 minutes. the assistant coach who is doing stats on the bench comes over, shows the refs his book. It looks like 3 fouls, 1 kind of smudged like it had been erased. He tells the refs, "i think in the first quarter, you called a charge and I initially thought it was a block, so thats why that foul was erased. He should only have 3". Mind you, if it was a previous foul, wouldnt the first box be erased and the subsequent foul just marked over it? anyways, long story short, after a long long delay, the game continues, player only has 3 fouls.

This is a coach that in every game, on every defensive possession, his opponent travels and sets illegal screens and his players never foul (even at the end of a game when they are fouling on purpose, he complains about foul calls). On every offensive possession, the defense is fouling and reaching and holding.

Why do you allow that behavior? He's obviously begging for a couple quick T's. Why not give him what he wants?

Horrible job by those officials.

I'd be pretty close to Ting him up just for that.

If the coach wants to argue for 15 minutes, he can shout at the wall in his locker room.

I had no preference on which team won that game until he started screaming at that young lady. I was shocked that the refs didn't step in to defend her.

Yes, indeed. "Coach, you may talk to us civilly as we work this out, or you can spend the rest of the afternoon in the locker room. Take your pick."

Really Coach? That's amazing. Most guys have only two!!! :eek:

And...if you don't think I'd really say this to a coach, you don't know me at all.