Would this have any impact?
 

Idea for NF rule addition. Since coaches are responsible for the conduct of their players (in theory, anyway), what if a coach received an indirect technical whenever a player on that team was charged with a flagrant foul? I know it would have a fairly minor impact on the administration of the game, but it might make the coach take a greater interest in his or her responsibility for the behavior of their players. I'm not suggesting it happen for any technical or intentional, only flagrant technicals or personals. Just a thought.

I don't think it happens often enough to be a concen. I don't think I've call 5 flagrant fouls in 20 years.

I'd be more in favor of a technical on the coach for allowing a player to enter the game who is not properly equipped. It works in football.

A few years ago I had a JV coach at the end of the game yell to his players " foul him, FOUL HIM, FOUL HIM" and a kid ran from near foul line past the far foul line to push a kid into the first row of the stands.

I immediately called an flagrant foul and and tossed the kid. It was the coaches fault all the way, but there was no rule for the coach ( from what I knew ). I have no doubt the coach did not want the kid killed.

In this case I would connect the coach if there was a rule. But I agree, it would be used rarely.

The theory behind the indirect technical foul, as I understand it, is that head coaches are responsible for the conduct of their respective benches. I don't know if that should extend to players.

If a player commits a flagrant foul, that player is disqualified. I say that's punishment enough. I don't think it's fair to hold the coach responsible.

I think it's a great idea.

A coach will think twice or three times about keeping/playing a loose cannon.

+1

They're all players, whether they're sitting on a bench or standing on the floor. Why shouldn't the coach be responsible for the conduct of them all? Besides, making this a rule would be symbolic - that's the point.

Actually, no. Players are the 5 team members in the game. The rest are bench personnel. But you know that. However, that's the point he's making. I tend to agree. Hard to control what some knucklehead is doing at the other end of the floor. Not all poor behavior comes with a red flag.

Just don't think it's necessary. My http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra...s/twocents.gif.

+1

For that matter, I've never seen a coach ejected as a result of indirect technicals.

Great Question.................................
 

When I first read this, I thought that you just had too much egg nog.

However - there are a lot of great points that have been argued.

I guess my only question is how much do we want to penalize a coach

because he has a couple of dumb asses on his team ??????

Coach ejections in my parts of the world have been rare. I've had two since 1987. The first was in a JV game in PA about 1991 -- I had called a direct technical in the first half and the coach followed me to the locker room at halftime. I called another technical and told him if he returned to the floor, I'd forfeit the game.

Second was in 1996 in a varsity game in TN -- Christian school coach who was very unChristian. Got a technical from my partner about 30 seconds into the game. Lasted until the second quarter when I called the second technical.

I will say that I probably should've had one last year. I chose talking the coach down from the ledge instead of pushing him off of it, and I'm not sure it was the right path for me to take.

Golden Parachute ???
 

Did the game get better after you talked him down? If so, then you did the right thing. If not? Then you learned a lesson, and next time you'll give him a little shove.

while I think that's a good rule of thumb for looking back, I don't think it can be seen as the only criteria for determining whether you made the right call. Sometimes, we call the T that needs called and the game still goes into the crapper. Others, perhaps Rich's example, we can avoid the necessary T and the game still stays manageable.