Coaching box restriction after a T

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I was wanting some opinions. Should we get rid of the restriction of the coaching box after a HC or AC is given a T? Should the rules just allow the coach to stand as normal even if they are T'd up for unsporting behavior?

It seems to me that the making them sit just adds to conflict that does not need to be there. Does anyone agree and if you don't why?

Just had some AAU games where we let the coach stand and it did not seem to make a difference either way in the behavior.

Peace

The FIBA rule is that they may continue as before the T. I have found that the the requirement for them to sit causes more conflicts than it prevents.

Let them stand, etc I say. The FIBA rule is better.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

The FIBA rule is that they may continue as before the T. I have found that the the requirement for them to sit causes more conflicts than it prevents.

Let them stand, etc I say. The FIBA rule is better.

Is it a FIBA rule or an NCAA or NBA Rule?

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Interesting...around here we work many doubleheaders (jv and then v). Twice this past season in jv games a coach was whacked for unsporting conduct (very much deserved) and then later tossed because they were standing up yelling at a player. Neither coach was saying anything to us, was simply hollering out at a player, was issued the 2nd T for not remaining seated, and was tossed.

And that to me, though correct by rule, is a "cheap" ejection.

The only times I've issued a T for a seat belt violation was when the coach would not sit, in clear protest to being given his first T...after holding up the game for the minute or so in trying to convince the coach to sit, decided we weren't going to have anymore of it and tossed the coach. Second time, had a coach jump out of his seat and cross half court because he believe his player was fouled...but that would have been a toss in of itself.

If we didn't have to worry about seating the coach, there wouldn't have been an issue in first scenario and wouldn't have had to 1.) waste time trying to get the coach to sit 2.) eject the coach.

[Maineac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I think they only should sit for a direct T caused by their own unsporting behavior, otherwise let them keep the box.

I like this suggestion, but would also make them responsible for the behavior of their assistant coaches. In other words, they keep the box unless they or an assistant engaged in unsporting behavior. Then the AC can explain to the HC how he/she cost the boss the coaching box.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Maineac

I like this suggestion, but would also make them responsible for the behavior of their assistant coaches. In other words, they keep the box unless they or an assistant engaged in unsporting behavior. Then the AC can explain to the HC how he/she cost the boss the coaching box.

That would be unsporting, would it not?

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

And that to me, though correct by rule, is a "cheap" ejection.

Absolutely.

Made for an interesting talk between games. In both cases the official admitted that he was still angry at the coach for what he said to get the first T. So, basically, they were looking for a reason to dump him and they found it.

Didn't like it then and don't like it now.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by rockyroad

Absolutely.

Made for an interesting talk between games. In both cases the official admitted that he was still angry at the coach for what he said to get the first T. So, basically, they were looking for a reason to dump him and they found it.

Didn't like it then and don't like it now.

Well if the coach followed the rule then he/she would not have had anything to worry about. It might be cheap, but it is the rule. Not saying I would do that, but that is the rule and why I want to change the rule.

Peace

[actuary77]

Fascinating discussion here. I like what JRutledge started here. Instead of officiating based on what we think the rule should be, we officiate on how the rule is currently written and lobby for rule changes. Speaking of lobbying, is there a process (or a lobbyist) for the officiating community to the NFHS Basketball Board to propose rule changes like these? Imho, the perspective of those of us who apply the rules to the game (and actually read the rule book every year) is important and needs to be on the table.

[ILRef80]

I agree with the OP. While I do believe the loss of the coaching box acts as a deterrent, I think it escalates some situations.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by actuary77

Fascinating discussion here. I like what JRutledge started here. Instead of officiating based on what we think the rule should be, we officiate on how the rule is currently written and lobby for rule changes. Speaking of lobbying, is there a process (or a lobbyist) for the officiating community to the NFHS Basketball Board to propose rule changes like these? Imho, the perspective of those of us who apply the rules to the game (and actually read the rule book every year) is important and needs to be on the table.

Actually, in many cases, we officiate what the rule should be instead of what is written until they change it to a more appealing form. Three examples come to mind....

1. Leaving the court w/o permission. In the past, every one knew exactly what constituted leaving the court and the penalty was a T. 99% of the time, officials refused to call it because the penalty of a T was too harsh. We didn't actually call it as a violation like it was eventually changed to but we didn't call the rule as written. Eventually, because no one ever called it, they changed it to a violation and now it gets called. It doesn't happen more, it is just a fair penalty for the infraction.

2. Faking a foul. While some may claim otherwise as a justification to not call it, everyone knows a fake foul when they see it. Yet, we don't call it a T. Why? Too harsh of a penalty for the situation. We call it different than the book says because we don't like the book's penalty. If they were to change the penalty somehow, I bet it would get called.

3. Multiple fouls. I know of several instances where I "could" have called a multiple foul...times where two players contacted an opponent such that each contact alone was clearly and indisputably more than worthy of a foul (and the ball remained live due to it being a shooter). Yet, we pick one. We don't like the option of a multiple foul. We don't call it the way the rules are, but the way it is preferred.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by actuary77

Fascinating discussion here. I like what JRutledge started here. Instead of officiating based on what we think the rule should be, we officiate on how the rule is currently written and lobby for rule changes. Speaking of lobbying, is there a process (or a lobbyist) for the officiating community to the NFHS Basketball Board to propose rule changes like these? Imho, the perspective of those of us who apply the rules to the game (and actually read the rule book every year) is important and needs to be on the table.

That is actually not what I said or suggested. I simply said if the coach wants a break from the official, follow the rule. The rule says not to stand except for some very specific and brief situations when you have to sit as a coach. I am sure no one really cares if a coach stands briefly and hardly noticed that is not allowed by rule. I know I have had to tell assistants or players to sit down Also despite some here, there is such thing as called the "spirit of the rules." Now this is listed in the actual rulebook as the motivation of how to call rules. I am sure someone on the committee is not going to suggest we call a player running out of bounds on their own volition (not with the ball of course) if only their toe is touching the line as compared to going completely around a screen the same way. Also many rules have interpretations (and a casebook) that say exactly what and how they want certain rules to be applied.

Peace

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I know I have had to tell assistants or players to sit down ....

Is it better to tell the "stander" directly, or go through the head coach? I've been doing the latter.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Is it better to tell the "stander" directly, or go through the head coach? I've been doing the latter.

What is "better" is up to you or the circumstance. I usually say it so that the head coach can always hear me if I say anything to the assistant. But if the HC is reasonable, I will tell him directly. It really depends on the situation and how long I have to give the information.

Peace

[OrStBballRef]

I like the seat belt rule for direct T's on coaches. I think it's a pretty good deterrant for bad behavior as anyone who has coaches before you definately feel a little helpless sitting on a bench versus being able to stand/walk in a set area.

I've given out a bunch of T's to coaches over the years and in my experience the seat belt rule has never been a bone of contention or caused any additional trouble from heading my way or my partner's way after a T. The one coach I have tossed in my 10+ years of doing this was already seated and picked up two quick T's so it didn't really matter to him.

I think without the seat belt rule you'd be more likely to see more 'frustration T's' being issued as coaches would have more leeway to gripe about the officiating and there would be no punishment other than the prescribed rule. Loss of your coaching box might cause a coach to think twice about complaints if that meant he had to coach sitting down.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by OrStBballRef

I like the seat belt rule for direct T's on coaches. I think it's a pretty good deterrant for bad behavior as anyone who has coaches before you definately feel a little helpless sitting on a bench versus being able to stand/walk in a set area.

I've given out a bunch of T's to coaches over the years and in my experience the seat belt rule has never been a bone of contention or caused any additional trouble from heading my way or my partner's way after a T. The one coach I have tossed in my 10+ years of doing this was already seated and picked up two quick T's so it didn't really matter to him.

I think without the seat belt rule you'd be more likely to see more 'frustration T's' being issued as coaches would have more leeway to gripe about the officiating and there would be no punishment other than the prescribed rule. Loss of your coaching box might cause a coach to think twice about complaints if that meant he had to coach sitting down.

Well we are dealing with adults here. I am not saying that the contention is after they sit down. The contention comes when we have to play the "Who is going to tell him to sit" game. Because even if they are not the ones that get the T that makes them sit, it usually comes with some blow back. Either they want to get an explanation from the calling official, which is not always feasible in many situations or we have to baby sit them to follow the rule. I think we should just let them stand no matter who gets T'd and if they cannot behave then they can go. And we do not have to play this, "I did not say anything" game that coaches also like to play when they are seated as well. It works at the college ranks and you do not see many coaches after the first T getting thrown out.

I also had an incident during the regular season where the coach being seated probably interfered with my ability to hear them request a timeout and it lead to other conflict. That would have never happened in my opinion if the coach was standing.

I think we need to get away from having to feel that if they stand after a T we have to either T them or tell them to sit down. Just let them stand and get it out so to speak. In football for example the coaches do not lose anything but yards if they are flagged. They know they are on notice and they tend to behave if they get an USC flag.

Peace