Help with test question

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

That includes the ability to stand in the situations enumerated in 10-5-1, sans the coaching box which is lost for the remainder of the game.

Back In The Saddle, I just love it when you speak French! (With apologies to Gomez Addams)

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Where does it say the AC was promoted? If a team loses the head coach due to ejection, where does it say they must have a "new head coach," as opposed to having an assistant running the team?

Where does it say that the assistant is not promoted? The rules recognize the existence of a head coach, and place some limitations on him/her. But how a person gets to be head coach is a matter upon which the rules are entirely silent. I understand that to mean that it's a matter over which I have no input or control.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Where does it say that the assistant is not promoted? The rules recognize the existence of a head coach......

The rules also say that a team consists of 5 players, but if too many players are disqualified, that team must make do with less than 5. Why do we assume that a team whose head coach is disqualified should not now do without a head coach, and a few privileges that go with the title, like, for example, the ability to request a timeout from the bench.

The more I think about this, the better I like it.

[Back In The Saddle]

Well, I'm with you on the liking the idea part. But still not so much with the agreeing with you otherwise.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Where does it say the AC was promoted? If a team loses the head coach due to ejection, where does it say they must have a "new head coach," as opposed to having an assistant running the team?

Exactly.

Originally Posted by just another ref

The rules also say that a team consists of 5 players, but if too many players are disqualified, that team must make do with less than 5. Why do we assume that a team whose head coach is disqualified should not now do without a head coach, and a few privileges that go with the title, like, for example, the ability to request a timeout from the bench.

The more I think about this, the better I like it.

We have debated this before. The NFHS has an old play ruling which states that an Assistant Coach would assume the responsibilities of the removed Head Coach, however, it does not specifically state whether he also gets the privileges of the no-longer-present Head Coach.
It does make very clearly tell us that the AC may not use the coaching box.


2001-02 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 9: At the end of their pre-game warm-up, players A1, A4, A5, A9 each dunk the ball and subsequently leave the floor and go to their dressing room. RULING: A technical foul is assessed to each player. The game starts with eight (8) free throws (2 for each of the technical fouls) and the ball is awarded to B at the division line opposite the table. Four team fouls toward the bonus are assessed to A. The head coach of A is assessed an indirect technical foul for each offense (4) and is subsequently ejected from the contest. Any coach assuming the responsibilities of the head coach for the game would not have the use of the coaching box. (10-3-5; 10-5 Pen)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

We have debated this before. The NFHS has an old play ruling which states that an Assistant Coach would assume the responsibilities of the removed Head Coach, however, it does not specifically state whether he also gets the privileges of the no-longer-present Head Coach.
It does make very clearly tell us that the AC may not use the coaching box.


2001-02 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 9: At the end of their pre-game warm-up, players A1, A4, A5, A9 each dunk the ball and subsequently leave the floor and go to their dressing room. RULING: A technical foul is assessed to each player. The game starts with eight (8) free throws (2 for each of the technical fouls) and the ball is awarded to B at the division line opposite the table. Four team fouls toward the bonus are assessed to A. The head coach of A is assessed an indirect technical foul for each offense (4) and is subsequently ejected from the contest. Any coach assuming the responsibilities of the head coach for the game would not have the use of the coaching box. (10-3-5; 10-5 Pen)

Any point which is best proved by an eight year old interp is, in my opinion, very vague indeed. Furthermore, I think it is a safe bet that many officials never even read/know about the interp list for the current year, let alone the archives thereof. Having said that, the point in the above interp smacks of 'cuz I said so' and very little else.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Any point which is best proved by an eight year old interp is, in my opinion, very vague indeed. Furthermore, I think it is a safe bet that many officials never even read/know about the interp list for the current year, let alone the archives thereof. Having said that, the point in the above interp smacks of 'cuz I said so' and very little else.

While that may be true, the NFHS makes the rules and therefore is uniquely entitled to issue "cuz I said so" interpretations clarifying, or expanding upon the written rules.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Where does it say the AC was promoted? If a team loses the head coach due to ejection, where does it say they must have a "new head coach," as opposed to having an assistant running the team?

You're right, it doesn't. Those were my words. The NCAA book uses the word "replaces." Thanks for the correction.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

You're right, it doesn't. Those were my words. The NCAA book uses the word "replaces." Thanks for the correction.

Okay, so HC is gone, and AC replaces him. AC is now an HC, even if it's temporary. So he went from AC to HC. Isn't there a word for that sort of career move? It's on the tip of my tongue....

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, so HC is gone, and AC replaces him. AC is now an HC, even if it's temporary. So he went from AC to HC. Isn't there a word for that sort of career move? It's on the tip of my tongue....

Field Promotion? or like being promoted by Darth Vader?

[Camron Rust]

If the assistant doesn't become the head coach, then who has the permission to call timeout from the bench? Who is responsible for replacing DQ'd players?

he book says, quite clearly, that those responsibilities/rights are limited to the head coach.

Unless someone is saying that a team no longer has to replace DQ'd players or can no longer call timeout from the bench, the only way that is possible is for the assistant to become the new "head coach". They are now fully and completely responsible for the team and have all rights and privileges of a head coach that the position has not already lost.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If the assistant doesn't become the head coach, then who has the permission to call timeout from the bench? Who is responsible for replacing DQ'd players?

he book says, quite clearly, that those responsibilities/rights are limited to the head coach.

Unless someone is saying that a team no longer has to replace DQ'd players or can no longer call timeout from the bench, the only way that is possible is for the assistant to become the new "head coach". They are now fully and completely responsible for the team and have all rights and privileges of a head coach that the position has not already lost.

Do you suppose JAR will be back to argue that since the AC is not the HC that the team cannot replace DQ'd players, but that they also cannot play with fewer...so, they have to forfeit for failing to follow the referee's directive.

BTW, does this same twisted logic (not Carmon's logic, the counter argument) also extend to the crew? If the R were to become injured and could not continue would the crew have to continue without an R? You'd better pray it doesn't happen in the first half or there would be nobody to administer the throw-in to start the second half.

Or, even better... The R injures himself tossing A's HC. Later in the game A5 fouls out. But there is no HC to replace him. No problem, we forfeit the game. Whoops, we've got no R. We cannot play without the replacement. We cannot end the game. 10,000,000 years from now archeologists uncover a high school gymnasium full of bodies, a couple in striped shirts, who all died of old age.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Do you suppose JAR will be back to argue that since the AC is not the HC that the team cannot replace DQ'd players, but that they also cannot play with fewer...so, they have to forfeit for failing to follow the referee's directive.

Obviously, it is necessary for someone to assume some responsibilities of the now departed head coach. If a player wears an illegal jersey, somebody has to get the T. Or does he? In lieu of a head coach, any technical foul which would normally go to the head coach could now be a team T. An assistant coach is now running the team, but does he now have the responsibilities and privileges of a head coach?

The whole point was that I would like to see this issue specifically addressed in the books.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Obviously, it is necessary for someone to assume some responsibilities of the now departed head coach. If a player wears an illegal jersey, somebody has to get the T. Or does he? In lieu of a head coach, any technical foul which would normally go to the head coach could now be a team T. An assistant coach is now running the team, but does he now have the responsibilities and privileges of a head coach?

The whole point was that I would like to see this issue specifically addressed in the books.

The Interp which I quoted earlier clearly references another coach assuming the responsibilities of the departed Head Coach, however, it makes no mention of him also having the privileges of a Head Coach. Those are two entirely different matters. Since the HC was removed either for his own poor behavior or for failure to properly control those on his bench, I believe that it is quite plausible that the team could be punished by having whoever takes over not have all of the normal privileges of a Head Coach. If the HC is silly enough to get tossed, then some of the perks, such as requesting a time-out from the bench area, go out the door with him. Obviously, the team must have someone assume the duties that are necessary to run the team, but why should the team retain extra privileges specifically given to a Head Coach when it no longer has one?

[Camron Rust]

The head coach is a position, not a person. You don't disqualify a position, you disqualify a person.