Help with test question

[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.