Head Coach privileges

[jer166]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's been debated before.

in what context?

[Adam]

The debate is whether or not the AC gets the HC responsibilities should the HC be removed. There's nothing in the rules that transports them to the AC, or that declares the AC the HC.

[jer166]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The debate is whether or not the AC gets the HC responsibilities should the HC be removed. There's nothing in the rules that transports them to the AC, or that declares the AC the HC.

So then let's assume a player is DQ'd for any reason. Who then replaces him? And what happens if a replacement isn't at the table within the required time limit?

[Adam]

Now you're starting to inject common sense into the argument.

[26 Year Gap]

Nothing prevents the AC from requesting that his players call time-out.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Nothing prevents the AC from requesting that his players call time-out.

Nothing prevents the HC from doing the same, either. That didn't stop the rules committee from allowing him to request the TO directly.

However, without a HC, there is no one to replace a DQ'd player.
There is no one to request a TO for a correctable error.
There is no one to hold accountable for the bench players' behavior.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

However, without a HC, there is no one to replace a DQ'd player.
There is no one to request a TO for a correctable error.
There is no one to hold accountable for the bench players' behavior.

There is if you use a little common sense.

If it's not covered definitively, pick the option that's gonna help you the most....or hurt you the least. Someone has to control the l'il sh!ts, and also maybe help keep the game running smoothly. Put the onus on the assistant coach. It might be to your benefit.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nothing prevents the HC from doing the same, either. That didn't stop the rules committee from allowing him to request the TO directly.

However, without a HC, there is no one to replace a DQ'd player.
There is no one to request a TO for a correctable error.
There is no one to hold accountable for the bench players' behavior.

Then the HC should have taken steps not to get DQ'd. If his removal results in his team losing certain privileges, too bad, there's a certain justice in that.

Notice that players can still be DQ'd because ANY coach can be notified for this since the rule does not specify HEAD coach.

If the player isn't replaced in time, a team technical foul can be charged.

[Splute]

I had never noticed the word PREVENT a timing mistake before... My bold lettering and Italics parenthesis....

The head coach may request a time-out or signal his/her players to request a time-out, while within the confines of the coaching box. The head coach may also confer with personnel at scorer's table (assumed while in coaching box) to request a 60-second time-out (or one 30-second time-out if that is the only type of time-out remaining) for a correctable error as in 2-10, or to prevent or rectify a timing or scoring mistake or alternating possession mistake.

So, does this mean the AC who is assuming the HC responsibilties is now allowed 3 direct/indirect Ts before DQ or is he still at 2?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

So, does this mean the AC who is assuming the HC responsibilties is now allowed 3 direct/indirect Ts before DQ or is he still at 2?

If you're going to give him indirects, you need to allow for three.
The question is whether he can request TOs, choose mandatory replacements, etc. If he can, give him the indirects as well.