Head Coach privileges

[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.

[Adam]

There you go inserting common sense into this.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

What is that little note of a rule that states if there is no rule that applies, the Official's judgement shall rule? Not verbatim of course.

[Splute]

I am referring to rule 2-3: The referee shall make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules.

[jer166]

In Los Angeles City Section if the head coach is ejected the game is over...a forfeit is declared. It would be great if other sections, leagues, or even NFHS had the courage to do this.

[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.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

Technically yes, although 4.14.1 C indicates that the head coach should be notified. When the HC is present, I'd say that you go to him/her. I do agree that the HC being ejected doesn't mean that players can no longer be DQed.

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

Really?? Other than invoking 10-1-5, I don't see how that would be possible.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

Really? Rule 10-5-3PENALTY says that you charge the head coach with a direct "T".. It doesn't say that you can't do that just because he's already been tossed. Soooooo......charge the head coach with the "T" even though he's in the dressing room.

That makes at least as much sense as not letting an assistant coach assume head coach duties, and you've got way more rules language to back it up too.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Really? Rule 10-5-3PENALTY says that you charge the head coach with a direct "T".. It doesn't say that you can't do that just because he's already been tossed. Soooooo......charge the head coach with the "T" even though he's in the dressing room.

That makes at least as much sense as not letting an assistant coach assume head coach duties, and you've got way more rules language to back it up too.

I think that you make a good point.