Head Coach privileges
 

I couldn't find anywhere in the book. If the Head Coach gets ejected, does the assistant coach get head coach privileges (ie, coaching box)?

No. Once the coaching box is gone, it is gone for the rest of the game for all people with that team.

However, he would assume all the head coach's duties & all other requirements for replacing DQ players, time outs, bench personnel, etc. would be his responsibility.

That's been debated before. :eek:

in what context?

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.

Head coach may prevent
 

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

There you go inserting common sense into this.

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.

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

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.

I'm curious. Has this policy improved HC behavior? Or has it only made officials more reluctant to toss the coach, thus empowering HC's to behave ever more badly?

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.

So if three players dunk during pre-game (and KSRef07 isn't on the floor), then the game results in a forfeit?

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.

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

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 a little of both. It has been my experience that most officials are reluctant to toss a coach UNLESS the behavior is so bad it can't be overlooked. However it happens several times a year and the coach is also suspended for the next game.

Yep. Around here it is called. The big cat & mouse game is the players wait until the officials are tied up with the captains & coaches for their pregame. We had one caught in the state quarterfinal game. Started the game -2, +1, coach seat belted to the bench. :eek:

Someone should tell these players they're not in sasnaK anymore.

That's my position, but not my decision. We got caught because there are 3 official crews in our playoffs & 2 in almost all of our other games.

I think that you make a good point.