case 10.5.1 Sit C

[Splute]

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?

[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.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Nothing good can come from the coach going to the scorer's table.

Amen, brother.

[Splute]

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

[Jurassic Referee]

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.

[Nevadaref]

FYI the NCAA rule is a bit different.

[Splute]

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.....

[Splute]

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

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Splute

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

tweaked or piqued. Just saying...

[Splute]

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.

[rainmaker]

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!

[Nevadaref]

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?

[Splute]

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.

[BktBallRef]

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!?!?!

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?

[truerookie]

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.