Coaching box restriction after a T

[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.

[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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...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.
...

That's the coach's fault for not knowing he is allowed to stand to request a time-out.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That's the coach's fault for not knowing he is allowed to stand to request a time-out.

I totally agree. And he did not project his voice and assumed I would hear him. But if we get rid of this rule I think we have little to worry about in these situations. Then again my suggestion was to avoid having to babysit the rule.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That's the coach's fault for not knowing he is allowed to stand to request a time-out.

Most coaches, and a few officials, don't realize that there are several circumstances under which a coach, who has been "seatbelted", may legally stand:

1) To request a timeout, or signal his players to request a timeout.

2) To confer with personnel at the scorer’s table to request a timeout that a correctable error, or a timing, scoring, or alternating possession mistake be prevented, or rectified.

2) To replace or remove a disqualified or injured player, or player directed to leave the game.

3) During a charged timeout, or the intermission between quarters, and extra periods.

4) To spontaneously react to an outstanding play by a team member or to acknowledge a replaced player.