Player ejected - adult supervision
 

Boys HS frosh. A1 gets his second T for an F-bomb. When he gets to the bench, he kicks the bleacher. Coach confronts him and then tells him to leave the gym. Coach walks him to the end of the gym, sends him out the door and tells him to go to the locker room. Coach then returns to the floor. No adults go with the player.

What responsibility (if any) do the officials have to make sure that the player has adult supervision?

someone correct me if i'm wrong but we have zero responsibility in that regard

How do you know no adults went with the player. Maybe there was someone outside the gym.

At that point he is no longer part of the game. The school administration is now responsible. I believe adult supervision applies only to ejections in baseball.

The only responsibility as officials is if a player is disqualified, WE do not send him outside the gym with no supervision, so we are not liable. If a coach sends the player to the locker room, that's his responsibility.

You're right drizzle. Only time I might say something is if it is the visiting team, because its not there school or locker room. Unlike if its the home team , if the kid does get stupid, he's on his turf, easier to nail him on Monday or Wednesday (Assuming your HS games are on Tuesday and Friday)

There are only two times when a disqualified player such as A1 should not remain on the team bench:


1) If his continued presence creates a problem to the playing of the game.

2) His Head Coach wants him in the team locker room.


In both cases, A1 must be accompanied to the team locker room and an adult must stay with A1 at all times.

While I commend A-HC for wanting A1 off the bench, in the absence of adult supervision, A1 must remain on Team A's bench. It is the responsibility of the officials to make sure that before A1 leaves the team bench that he will be accompanied by an adult and that Team A is aware of this requirement.

MTD, Sr.

Mark,

Do you have citation on this? I've found nothing that requires us to make certain that all bench personnel remain on the bench unless accompanied by an adult.

I disagree -- its the coach and admins responsibility to watch out for this kid. I wont kick him out of the gym, but if the coach chooses to do so, I wont invite him back.

Amen. Let's just make sure they don't send him to the officials' locker room.

I agree ith Mark T DeNucci, Sr and disagree with Deecee. JDW3018 yes there is a rule and casebook. Rule 10.3 Penalty Note and casebook is either 10.3 (casebook 2007-08) or 10.5 (casebook 2006-07).

This event happened to me in a GV game. Partner T'd a player 2X and then tossed her from the gym. I told him he was incorrect to toss her from the gym and he defiantly told me he was right BY RULE. After the game, he couldn't "find" the ruling. But the next day I did, 10.3 Pen Note and e-mailed both the rule and casebook text to him. He was apologetic and thankful for the information.

flaref, I agree that we disqualify him to the bench rather than ejecting the team member from the gym.

However, if the coach then wents that player to go to the locker room - or any other player on the bench for that matter, I don't see how it's our responsibility to stop him.

You might have misread what I typed -- I wont kick the player out of the gym, however I cannot control the coach from kicking the player out of the gym. We don't do coaches jobs any more than we like coaches who try and do ours.

i knew someone who was ejected and went out and started hitting cars. guess he needed an adult. but really not our problem

...unless your car was hit.

Where do I begin with all of the people who have said I am wrong.


Lets begin with NFHS Casebook Play 10.5 SITUATION: (a) The head coach is charged (directly or indirectly) with a third technical foul, or a second direct technical; or (b) A1 commits a flagrant technical foul against B1.

Pay close attention to the RULING for (a):

RULING: In (a), the coach shall leave the vicinity or the playing area and have no further contact with the team. The official has no option and may not set aside the provision which requires removal. This also applies to all adult bench personnel who receive two technical fouls. In (b), the flagrant technical foul disqualifies A1 from further participation in the contest. A disqualified team member or student bench personnel shall go to or remain on the bench. However, in an unusual situation, an official has the authority to require that these individuals who have committed a flagrant technical foul must leave the vicinity of the court. This action is necessary when permitting such offenders to remain at courtside would tend to incite the crowd, to incite the opponents, or to subject the officials, opponents or others administering the game, to unsporting harassment. In such circumstances, the official should require the individual who has committed a flagrant foul to leave the vicinity of the court with an adult supervisor. It must be emphasized that an official does have this authority, when the circumstances resulting from any flagrant foul warrant it. (10-5 Note 2)


The officials have the final word on what happens to the disqualified player. The disqualified player cannot leave the team bench Unless the player is supervised by an adult. No adult supervision, means the player stays remains on the team bench. The Head Coach cannot just send the player to the lockerroom without adult supervision and the officials shall not allow the Head Coach to send the disqualified player to the lockerroom.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. lpbreeze: The disqualified player in your scenario is your responsibility.

once again i disagree -- your caseplay speaks to the official HAVING to request the player to leave the playing area -- NOT the coach

Read the fourth (4th) sentence in the Casebook Play RULING. It says and I quote: "A disqualified team member or student bench personnel shall go to or remain on the bench." That means just what it says. It does not say that the player shall go where the coach wants the player to go. Having said, if the Head Coach wants the player in the lockerroom with adult supervision, then by all means the officials should allow it. The intent of the rule is to insure that the player or student bench personnel who are disqualified are under adult supervisioin at all times. If the disqualified non-adult participant is not going to be supervised by an adult while in the lockerroom then the disqualified non-adult participant must stay on the team bench.

I just don't understand why officials think that when a Head Coach says: "Trust me." That officials will trust him. Trusting a coach is a sure way for an official and his family to end up living in a house trailer for the next 20 or 30 years.

MTD, Sr.

in my case he literally just walked off the floor and out of the gym and there wasn't a time for an adult or the coach to say anything. I was a player in the game actually.
So can an ejected player get another tech if he stays around? or give it to the coach I guess.

In your case the answer is neither. The officials should have ascertained whether the player was under adult supervision. If the player was not under adult supervision they needed to get his tuchus back on the bench.

MTD, Sr.

A player shall go to or remain on the bench to means that if the Flag T was called on bench personnel - they are to remain there and if called on a player - they are to go to the bench. Once on the bench - and the coach feels they need to go to locker room and sends them there it is no longer my responsibility IMO unless they create some kind of disturbance along the way that warrants my attention.

In the words of my pre-teen daughter: "Exaggerate much?" :p

We're obviously going to disagree, MTD. I've seen nothing in the citation you have that makes me believe a coach cannot send a DQ'd team member - or any other member - to the locker room. If a player loses his contact and they forgot to bring saline solution to the bench, I'm not going to stop him from running to the locker room.

It's the same reason when I was in Kansas I didn't stop a player in a JV game from going to the locker room so he wouldn't be an eligible substitute. I see nothing different here in terms of my responsibility as an official.

You would be wrong in Kansas to allow a team to play shorthanded when they have an eligilble player, because NFHS Rules do not allow the team to play shorthanded; if the player has not been disqualfied and is not injured and has quarters to play, then that player must play. From your previous posts, Kansas has a quarters per day rule like Ohio does. If a player has only played in the first three quarters of the JV game and the VAR Coach doesn't want her to play the fourth quarter of the JV game so that she will have a quarter of eligibility for the VAR game, that is fine, but if that player is one of only five players eligilbe to play in the fourth quarter of the JV game she must play in the JV game. Too bad about the VAR game. Remember what NFHS Rules say about playing shorthanded.

NFHS Rules also state that a disqualified player or a disqualified non-adult bench personel shall stay on the bench unless he is under the supervision of an adult.

MTD, Sr.

MTD, just curious, not critical - what if a coach tells a kid to go to the locker room during a game for some other reason, like to change his socks or something (OK - poor example, but it happens)? Do you feel it's your responsibility to see to it that an adult goes with him? I certainly don't. And if you don't either, what's the difference as to the reason he goes to the locker room?

Thanks, Mark, this is the point I was trying to make.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The NFHS rule about adult supervision concerns non-adult participants (players, substitutes, and other bench personel) that have been disqualified. See my post just before your post.

MTD, Sr.

And I know we've discussed this before, but if the coach tells me the player is no longer able to play and that player is no longer on the bench in uniform, then I'm not asking why he isn't able anymore. That is accepted practice where I used to be. We don't have this issue here, as SC doesn't have the same practices regarding quarter rules and typically JV and V games are not on the same day.

And I interpret the ruling about adult supervision only applies to a disqualified player who you, as an official, direct to leave the bench area. If his coach directs him to leave, this ruling doesn't apply.

You are missing the point. The third quarter of the JV game ends with Team A having five players on the court and those are the only five remaining players that are eligible. You get ready to start the fourth quarter and Team A has only four players return to the court, and the reason is that the fifth player has not taken the court is because the VAR Coach wants her to save a quarter for the VAR game: TOO bad. NFHS Rules require Team A to put five players on the court because they have five eligible players remaining. Team A must have their fifth player return from the locker room and play in the fourth quarter of the JV game. If Team A refuses to start the fourth quarter for five players, then it loses the game by forfiet (dang I hope I spelled that word correctly). There is nothing really difficult about this rule. Just enforce it.

MTD, Sr.

We are talking about two different scenarios - in mine, a coach sends this JV/V player out while there are still 5 eligible players. After that, one of the 5 then fouls out. At that point, I allow them to continue playing with only 4.

In the scenario as you described, I agree with you.

MTD, if the coach comes back and says the 5th player has taken ill what would "you" do then? If I'm a coach and I choose to play the 4th quarter with just 4 players, I may use this tactic.

If one reads NFHS R10-S5, Penalty Note 2, one will see that it specifically states that and I quote: "Ejected adult bench personnel shall leave the vicinity (out of sight and sound) of the playing area immediately and are prohibited from any further contact (direct or indirect) with the team during the remainder of the game."

No where in the NFHS Rules will anybody find a rule that states that a disqualified non-adult bench personel shall leave the vicinity (out of sight and sound) of the playing area immediately and are prohibited from any further contact (direct or indirect) with the team during the remainder of the game. The reason being that the NFHS wants disqualified non-adult bench personel to be under adult supervision at all times.

MTD, Sr.

Well of course I agree with you, I never was talking about a player fouling out, I have always been addressing the situation where the team does have five eligible players and does not want to play one of them.

MTD, Sr.

In your situation, we have to take the JV Coach's word. A player that is injured or sick is not considered an eligible player in your scenario, BUT if it was discovered later that the JV Coach lied about the player's condition just so she didn't have to play the fourth quarter I would that the powers to be would put the hammer down on the JV Coach and the VAR Coach for unethical behavior.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Of course schools will punish coaches for unethical and unsportsmanlike behavior when pigs fly.

And nowhere will you find a rule that states non-adult bench personnel shall only leave the bench with adult supervision except in a scenario where an official directs a disqualified member to do so.

You are still missing the point. The rule is written to make sure that disqualified non-adult bench personnel are always (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) under the supervision of adults. When they are sitting on the team beach they are under the supervision of an adult. In the Casebook Play, the official has the disqualified non-adult bench personnel leave the bench, but that disqualified non-adult bench personnel must be under the supervision of an adult. The rule is written in such a manner that the Head Coach cannot send disqualified non-adult bench personnel to the locker room without adult supervision. As I have stated before, quit comparing apples to oranges.

MTD, Sr.

Respectfully, I disagree. The rule is written in such a manner that the official can only direct the disqualified team member to leave except under the unusual circumstances cited with adult supervision.

If I have not directed the disqualified team member to leave, I have no more responsibility regarding his leaving the bench than any other non-adult member of the bench.

If I call a flagrant technical foul on a student manager for unsportsmanlike conduct, he/she stays on the bench. But if the coach then sends that student to the locker room, I'm not chasing him/her down to make certain there is adult supervision.

There are no apples or oranges here. Only differing interpretations of officials' jurisdiction and the application of this rule.

I am going lay this issue to rest once and for all, and my remarks are based upon hearing Dick Schindler, who was still the NFHS Basketball Rules Editor at the time that the rule was adopted, speak on it at an IAABO Fall Rules Interpreters Meeting.


If one reads the NFHS Rules Book, and I have read it, one will see that there are two types of adult bench personnel: (1) the Head Coach, and (2) all other adult bench personnel. One will also see that there are three types of non-adult bench personnel: (1) Substitutes, (2) disqualified players, and (3) all other non-adult bench personnel; and players are non-adults by default.

One will see that when the Head Coach receives the appropriate direct and indirect technical fouls or a single flagrant technical foul he is and I quote: “disqualified and ejected.” When all other adult bench personnel receives the appropriate direct and indirect technical fouls or a single flagrant technical foul they are ejected. Ejection means to “leave the vicinity (out of sight and sound) of the playing area.”

One will see that when a player becomes receives the appropriate number of personal and technical fouls are a single flagrant foul, he becomes disqualified and becomes bench personnel. When non-adult bench personal receive the appropriate number of personal and/or technical fouls or a single flagrant foul, they become disqualified and are already bench personnel. The Rules specifically want the disqualified non-adult bench personnel to remain on the team bench and remain under the supervision of an adult.

One will also see that ejection is a penalty that applies only to adult bench personnel. Ejection does not apply to non-adult bench personnel. Why does ejection not apply to players and non-adult bench personnel? Because, all disqualified non-adult bench personnel must remain under the supervision of an adult. PERIOD!! When a player or other non-adult is disqualified, the game officials are prohibited from ejecting him by rule. If the disqualified non-adult bench personnel meets the requirements of the NFHS Casebook Play that I have quoted in a previous post then the game officials can have the disqualified non-adult bench personnel removed from the team bench but only if they remain under the supervision of an adult. A Head Coach cannot remove a disqualified non-adult bench personnel to an area such as the locker room, unless that non-adult bench personnel is supervised by an adult, because the Rules require disqualified non-adult bench personnel to remain on the team bench unless the Casebook Play must be invoked.

MTD, Jr.

My last post on this subject: nothing in this post is any different than what you were saying in any other post. I completely understand that adult bench personnel are ejected and non-adult personnel cannot be ejected. We agree they may be removed under the specific requirements of the casebook play. I agree completely with everything you wrote in everything but the final paragraph.

I see nothing in the rules book differentiating what a coach may do (relative to sending bench personnel to the locker room, bus, hallway, wherever) with his bench personnel, disqualified or not. You've cited the same case play several times here, and I just don't agree that it applies to what a coach wants to do with his non-adult bench personnel. According to what you wrote:

we're back to discussing what you called "apples and oranges" because now you're saying a player who needs saline solution from his bag may not run to the locker room without an adult escort.

I see nothing which requires me to monitor every movement of all bench personnel both inside and outside the confines of the game.

Unless ..
 

Unless, the official, by rule, has ejected the player away from the bench area.

I do see Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.'s point, but I think his reasoning is a real stretch. If a coach, not the official, want to send his, or her player, to the locker room because they're sick, or need to replace a contact lens, or are giving the coach a hard time, I don't think that we can stop the coach from doing that, and under these conditions, I don't think that we should have to determine if there is an adult in the locker room.

I do give credit to Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. for being so persistent, making me think that he might, I said, might, be right. I've never seen him so worked up about a Forum situation, and he's, very often, correct in his interpretations.

MTD, I'm going to have to join in the chorus of disagreement.

The intent of this rule is clear - to give the officials a way of removing a player from the bench. It is not there to prevent a coach from dismissing a player on his own accord.

Ok, so either way if the player is continuing to cause a problem or if the coach wants him off the bench ( I had a game where one of the star players of the BV team was disqualified for swearing and the coach not only dismissed him from the bench but from the team ) how can we not "trust" the coach (it's a hard concept I know) but if we remind the coach of the rule and can articulate a reasonable belief of compliance, what more responsibility can we have? Are we supposed to obtain the identity of the supervision and have them sign a release and then periodically check on them? What if the DQ happens before half-time and when the team comes back the player is gone?

If you have a DQ you're more than likely required to write a report. I would document the series of events, circumstances and your conversation with the coach and reiterate that the rule was explained. As long as you have an agreement from the coach and the situation is well documented I would think that either the school or state would then be responsible for disciplining the coach in the event something happens to the player or because of the player's actions.

I don't like making excuses for mistakes in my posts, both Daryl and I missed the Monday OhioHSAA State Rules Meetings for Baseball and Softball because we were both officiating basketball and I was trying to get my latest post posted Daryl picked me up to go to the OhioHSAA State Rules Meetings in Archbold, Ohio, therefore I did not proof read what I wrote.

BUT, if you go back to my post that you quoted you will see that I have now proof read it and edited it (see the red in bold italics) to what I wanted to say. Meaning, that I stand by what I wrote in the edited post.

Dick Schindler was still the NFHS Basketball Rules Editor when this rule was adopted and I heard him speak about the change and how it was to be applied. What I have told you is what Dick told us at and interpreters' meeting. What I said in the last paragraph of the post you are quoting is exactly how the Rules Committee wanted it to be applied. If you do not want to accept what I am saying I am sure you will accept the interpretation of the Rules Editor.

The rule does not require nor did it ever require a non-disqualified non-adult bench personnel to supervised by an adult when not on the bench. The rule is to be applied to disqualified non-adult bench personnel. And yes, by rule you are required to monitor disqualified non-adult bench personnel; you are required to make sure that they are under adult supervision at all times.

If you feel that you do want that responsibility that do not officiate basketball under NFHS Rules.

MTD, Sr.

Mark:

Read my Posts #40 and #45. What I have written is nothing more than what Dick Schindler told rules interpreters. Dick's word is the final word.

MTD, Sr.

CJRef:

Read my Posts #40 and #45. Dick Schindler stated quite clearly how the rule was to be applied. Disqualified non-adult bench personnel must be under adult supervision at all times. They are not to be sent to the locker room without being supervised by an adult. It does not matter who wants him off the team bench, the disqualified non-adult bench personnel must be supervised by an adult. If the head coach wants the disqualified non-adult bench personnel off the team bench, the game officials must require the disqualified non-adult bench personnel to be supervised by an adult.

MTD, Sr.

What if a player picks up 5 personal fouls and fouls out? Let's say it's towards the end of the JV game and the coach wants the player to go back to the locker room to change into his/her varsity jersey. Would you still require that player to stay on the bench?

Mark:
The casebook states the player must leave the vicinity of the court with an adult supervisor. If that happens or if we inform the coach of such and he assures us that the player is supervised, what else are we to do? You're making it sound as though we are responsible for ensuring that the player continues to be supervised. I'm documenting the situation and moving on.

I'm sure Bob Schindler appreicates your loyalty, but his word isn't exactly the "final" word. Next time I have an issue with a coach I'm going to tell him Bob Schindler said so and see how far I get.

CJRef:

One, the Rules Editor I am referencing is the late Dick Schindler, not Bob. Two, if the Head Coach tells the official that the player is under adult supervision then the official has done what the rules require him to do. At that point there is not need to document anything. And when the Rules Editor speaks, like the old E.F. Hutton commercial, everybody should listen.

MTD, Sr.

Mark:

I am glad you brought this particular situation into the discussion. Daryl and I discussed last night, on our drive to our State Baseball and Softball Rules Meeting, similar situations with regard to the player "with" JV eligibility leaving the bench before the end of the JV game to get ready for the VAR game.

The NFHS Rules are written with the presumption that there is only one game being played. The Rules have no contingency for the situation that you described. My position throughout this thread has been based on the presumption that there is only one game being played with no game following it. The Rules also make no distinction between a non-adult bench personnel who has been disqualified because of five fouls as opposed to one who has been disqualified because of a single flagrant foul.

Every discussion in which I have taken part concerning the application of the rule has been in regard to a player that has been disqualified due to a single flagrant foul. The rule was adopted due to anecdotal evidence where players that were ejected by the game officials in one case destroyed a locker room and in another case the player did bodily harm to himself. The history of the adoption of the rule suggests that if a player who has fouled out late in the JV game, leaves the team bench to get ready for the VAR game is not the target of the rule, because logic would suggest that the player is joining his/her VAR teammates in the locker room who are already under the supervision of the Head Coach.

In the situation that you are describing would be best handled if all states adopted the MichiganHSAA rule that a player only plays in one game per day. Meaning if Teams A and B play a FR/JV/VAR tripleheader, a player can play in only one of the three games, not spread his/her five quarters over the three games like he/she can do under OhioHSAA rules.

MTD, Sr.

Mark,

As much as I appreciate your loyalty to your position and respect your support for Mr. Schindler, I do not accept this reasoning at all. How long since he was Rules Editor? 10 years? If the current editor, Mary Struckhoff, and the Rules Committee, want this rule to be as clearly ennunciated as you articulate, then they had better put it in the Rule Book or Case Book. Your citation deals with a particular fact set involving an official disqualifying a player. You extrapolate this to include that once an official does that, it is the official's responsibility to make sure he stays on the bench or leaves with an adult.

My reading is much simpler: the official may not send the player to the locker room, unless it is an unusal event and then with an adult. Once we do our job of sending the player to the bench, the coach is in charge. You say that Mr. Schindler told you otherwise. If so, that needs to be clearly stated in the Rule Book, not in a personal briefing with only some officials.

This is one of a long line of rulings that the NFHS has made that are open to too much interpretation from individuals and individual states.

BayState:

Your logic is faulty. When the Rules Editor speaks in his capacitiy as the Rules Editor, what he says has to be taken at face value. If the U.S. Supreme Court makes a ruling twenty years ago, does it not still remain in effect until the law changes. There are casebook plays that have not been in the Casebook for over ten years, but since the rule has not changed these casebook plays are still valid.

Dick Schindler, when he was the NFHS Rules Editor, would speak, in his capacity as the Rules Editor, at the IAABO Fall Rules Interpreters meeting every year; his address would be primarily about any new rules and changes in the rules as well as answer any questions. What Dick said isn't very difficult to implement. The real problem is in the many states that allow players to play in multiple games per day. Trying to apply a rule that is meant for a single game gets difficult. Re-read what I said about the history of the rule and why it was adopted. It was meant to dealt with disqualifications resulting from flagrant fouls.

Remember, our first responsibility is the safety of the non-adults involved in the game: the players and the non-adult bench personnel. Everybody needs to step back and look again at how this rule is meant to be implemented, keeping in mind that non-adult bench personnel are to be under the supervision of an adult.

Play 1: Our original play in this thread. Yes, most definitely this player needs to be under adult supervision at all times, whether on the team bench or in the locker room. Why? The player fits the profile of the anecdotal evidence that prompted the rule change in the first place.

Play 2: Two substitutes go to the locker room to exchange jersies because one jersey has blood on it. No adult supervision needed. Why? Are these players really going to trash the locker room or other nonsense? Certainly not. The purpose to the locker room is necessary for the players to be able to continue playing in the game.

Play 3: Substitute has to use the rest room, whether for #1, #2, or to puke on a coach's shoes, :D , (I couldn't resist that last comment). Again, see Play 2. Logic and a history of the rule tells us that this type of trip to the locker room wasn't intended to be covered by the rules.

Play 4: Substitue goes to the locker room late in the JV game to get ready with his/her teammates to play in the VAR game. I would venture to say that the Head Coach is already in the locker room with the other VAR players.

The key to remember is that the rule was intended to handle the unusual case of a player that had become disqualified due to a flagrant foul or if a non-adult bench personnel becomes a problem such that the Head Coach himself does not want this person on the bench even though he is not a disqualified non-adult bench personne; that non-adult bench personnel cannot and should not be allowed to leave the team bench unless he is under the supervision of an adult. Now I will admit that in the latter situation the game officials might not, and most likely will not be aware of such a problem on the bench and if their aren't aware of it there really is nothing they can do, but if they do become aware of it they need to let the Head Coach know what the rules require the Head Coach to do. The rule was not temporary trips to the locker room to fix equipment, go to the rest room, or get a drink at the water fountain.

Mary Struckhoff won't get involved in the discussion because she doesn't want to make rules interpretations even though that is her number one job description. And to be honest, there are a number of officials on this board who have infinitely more knowledge of the history of the rules and why they were adopted than Mary Struckhoff. Besides, Peter Webb is just two states over from you. If you want to get the best information regarding NFHS Rules, just contact Peter. Peter Webb spent two terms on the NFHS Rules Committee and is considered the most knowledgeble NFHS rules person in the country. Truth be known, Mary probably goes to Peter for rules interpretations when she wants to get it correct.

MTD, Sr.


P.S.: Re-read my Post #45. What do the Rules say about who gets ejected and who does not get ejected. Adult bench personnel are ejected. Adult bench personnel are not disqualified (except for the Head Coach who is both disqualified and ejected and I don't have a clue as to why the rule is written that way). The Rules specifically state that players (which are non-adults by default) and non-adult bench personnel are disqualified ONLY. As I have stated ad nauseum, the Rules do NOT eject disqualified players (which are non-adults by default) and non-adult bench personnel because they are to remain under the supervision of an adult. Furthermore, the situation in the original post is extremely rare. I have had my share of disqaulified (due to a flagrant foul) players in 37 years of officiating and I cannot remember a single time where I needed to have that player removed under adult supervision to the locker room. I have had games where I thought that a Head Coach or even both Head Coaches should have been under adult supervision, LOL, but that is another story. The best advice I can give you is to stop, and look at the problem logically. Does it fit the criteria of what the Rules Committee wanted when it adopted the rule? If it does, then require that non-adult bench personnel to be supervised by an adult off the team bench, if not require him to remain on the team bench.

If I run into a Supreme Court justice at Starbucks and he tells me what a certain case means, it has absolutely no standing. Only what the court says in formal decisions matter.

That is the point I was making. If they are in writing, they matter. If they are said to a single association, no matter the setting, they are informative and important, but they have no impact on those who did not hear the talk.
I have contacted Peter several times for rules interpretations. As much as I respect his position, it has only limited authority until the NFHS adopts his opinions as formal rules, comments or case book plays. I have used Peter several times as a source on this forum and each time have been reminded of that.