Help with test question

[referee99]

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?

[Adam]

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?

[referee99]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

Thanks.

[Nevadaref]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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

References?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Wasn't there an interp, though, that said s/he is allowed to stand (assuming 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.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then ...

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

S/he is allowed to stand (assuming no Ts) and request time out

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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?