Help with test question
 

From CBOA Study Guide:
109)) The top assistant coach is assessed an unsporting technical foul in the first half. In the second half, the head coach is ejected and the top assistant coach replaces the head coach. How many more subsequent technical fouls are required before that newly activated head coach would be ejected?
a) A single direct technical foul.
b) Two direct technical fouls.
c) A single indirect (bench) technical foul.
d) Three indirect (bench) technical fouls.

I have an individual on the bench who, in (a) receives a 2nd direct technical, and would then be disqualified and ejected. But I also have a Head Coach, who in (d) has 3 indirects and would be disqualified and ejected.

Am I missing something, or does this question have 2 correct answers?

His earlier direct carries over, so once the HC is gone, this fella is to be considered a HC with one direct TF.

He already has one direct, how many indirects before he's gone at this point?

Light bulb turns on.
 

Thanks.

The Head Coach who has been removed takes the indirects with him. The remaining assistant coach who is now in charge doesn't not have any indirect Ts charged to him.

Furthermore, he is NOT the Head Coach. He is simply the assistant Coach who is now in charge of the team and the rest of the bench personnel.

Wasn't there an interp, though, that said s/he is allowed to stand (asuming no Ts) and request time out, and gets the T if s/he doesn't replace a DQ'd player, ...

So, while s/he is not the head coach, s/he sure can act like one.

Not that these people don't believe you but...

References?

We're Always Supposed To Listen To bob, But ...
 

I thought the assistant coach, acting as the head coach, after the head coach was ejected, was not allowed to stand, but could do all the other things associated with being a head coach, like request timeouts. Unfortunately, I don't have any written citations to back this up. Any help out there would be greatly appreciated.

I know that I'm taking a big chance by not always listening to bob, but this may be that one time in a million when it actually pans out.

I believe Bob was referring to the ability to stand to request timeouts, correctable errors, etc.

So are we giving him an indirect when the knucklehead son of a head coach at the end of the bench gets a T?

I am. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then I'm going to treat it like a duck. But, in the OP, I'm going to treat him like a duck who has already lost the box.

... the cardinal is going to thrash it to a bloody pulp. :D

Assistant Coach As Head Coach Standing ???
 

In a coaching box state, isn't the head coach, who has lost his, or her privilege of standing due to a technical foul, still allowed to stand up to request a time-out or signal his, or her, players to request a timeout, to confer with personnel at the scorer’s table to request a timeout for a correctable error, timing, scoring, or alternating possession mistake, to replace, or remove, a disqualified, or injured, player, or player directed to leave the game, during a charged timeout, or the intermission between quarters, and extra periods, or to spontaneously react to an outstanding play by a team member, or to acknowledge a replaced player?

Unless the head coach is ejected, I don't believe that the head coach ever loses the right to stand for the situations listed above. However, after the head coach is ejected, does the assistant coach now inherit all of these rights and privileges, or just some of them: the right to stand during a charged timeout, or the intermission between quarters, and extra periods, and to spontaneously react to an outstanding play by a team member or to acknowledge a replaced player, which they always had as a member of the bench personnel?

When the head coach gets ejected, and the assistant is now in charge of the team, does he, or she, inherit all of the "standing" rights, and privileges, or some of the "standing" rights, and privileges, of the head coach? In other words, is he, or she, now the "head" coach who has lost his, or her, coaching box privileges due to the technical fouls incurred by the "real" head coach, or a member of the bench personnel who happens to be in charge of the team? I doubt that the new "head" coach gains the coaching box privilege after the "real" head coach has been ejected due to technical fouls, but, as I stated in a previous post, I don't have any pertinent citations.

In a similar vein, assuming no technical fouls, in the first minute of the game the head coach gets sick and decides to go to the locker room, doctor, hospital, home, etc. What standing rights, and privileges, does the assistant, now acting as the head coach, inherit, by rule? All coaching box privileges? All the standing rights as the "real" head coach, without the privilege of a coaching box? Or just the standing rights of a member of the bench personnel?

Inquiring minds want to know.

AFAIK that is correct. When an AC assumes the HC role, he is empowered to act in that role. 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.

That's what I would say.

Note that in NCAA, the coach may continue to stand even after s/he receives a direct or an indirect T, and the newly-promoted AC would have the same ability.

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?

They're creepy and they're kooky, Mysterious and spooky, They're all together ooky ..
 

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

http://thm-a01.yimg.com/image/524400906546c094

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.

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.

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

Exactly.

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.

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.

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....

Field Promotion? or like being promoted by Darth Vader?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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... :rolleyes:

Making it up as we go along is what we're trying to avoid.

A simple, brief addition to the book is all that it would take.

If the head coach is ejected, an assistant coach or some available adult associated with the school will assume this position, along with all the responsibilities and privileges which were originally those of the head coach at the start of the game.

or,

If the head coach is ejected, an assistant coach or other qualified adult shall be in charge of the team. This person is not allowed to use the box, and any technical foul which would have been charged to the coach (illegal jersey, etc.) is now a team technical.

JAR,

this really keeps you up at night?

No possums to argue with.

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.