Help with test question

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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

Accepting this as fact, the question remains: When this position is suddenly vacant, is another person necessarily/automatically promoted into this position.

I don't know if this would change anything for anyone, but around here it is not uncommon for the small schools to only have one coach, even at the varsity level. I have seen numerous occasions where the head coach was ejected and the principal or some other school official had to step in and finish the game as the (head?) coach.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Accepting this as fact, the question remains: When this position is suddenly vacant, is another person necessarily/automatically promoted into this position.

I don't know if this would change anything for anyone, but around here it is not uncommon for the small schools to only have one coach, even at the varsity level. I have seen numerous occasions where the head coach was ejected and the principal or some other school official had to step in and finish the game as the (head?) coach.

I would classify this under the Duck Rule.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck; it's a howler monkey.

[Back In The Saddle]

Exactly. I vaguely recall somebody saying something similar in post #10.

I've started to say this a few times, but never actually posted it. But here goes...

The rules acknowledge the role of head coach. The rules place some restrictions upon the person acting in this role. Beyond that, however, the rules are silent regarding this role and the person filling it.

I understand that silence to mean that details left unspecified are outside the scope of the rules, and outside our jurisdiction. In other words, somebody else gets to make those decisions, and gets to make whatever additional rules regarding the person or the position that the decision maker, or decision making body, deems appropriate.

There are other cases like this in the rules. The rules acknowledge the notion of eligibility (e.g., definition of team member) but do not define it. The rules acknowledge the role of game management/home management/host management, a role with certain specified responsibilities (e.g., designating each team's bench, reasonable responsibility for spectator behavior), but which otherwise remains undefined.

We have no problem excusing ourselves from involvement in player eligibility. We would not consider it our place to decide who fills the role of game management (with one clearly-defined exception specified by rule, adding an additional role to an existing role, which we had no part in determining who fills). So I find it puzzling that some of us want to grant ourselves a voice, even a veto, in any decision regarding who can or cannot be the head coach if the current head coach is ejected. Or suggesting we go outside the rules to reduce or eliminate privileges granted to the person filling that role.

Talk about making stuff up as we go along...

[deecee]

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.

Really? You need this spelled out that explicitly for you?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by deecee

Really? You need this spelled out that explicitly for you?

Not a matter of need, but when we consider some of the things which are
spelled out explicitly:

4-39-1: A rule is one of a group of regulations which govern the game.