Coaching box restriction after a T

[Bad Zebra]

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I wholeheartedly endorse CONTINUING with the seat belt rule. In my experience, the biggest pain in the @s$ coaches are the ones who suffer the most when they have to be seated. Thus, I believe it DOES actually act as a deterrent. My fear is that this group would get even worse without it.

I am basing this opinion on HS games only. AAU is a complete circus to me and nothing will change the behavior of that cast of fools.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but I wholeheartedly endorse CONTINUING with the seat belt rule. In my experience, the biggest pain in the @s$ coaches are the ones who suffer the most when they have to be seated. Thus, I believe it DOES actually act as a deterrent. My fear is that this group would get even worse without it.

I agree, but I wonder whether there is a deterrent for others on the bench. That is, are bench personnel more likely to remain quiet knowing they could cost their HC the coaching box?

[Scrapper1]

I like BNR's suggestion. Lose the box for direct T's only. Keep the rule that ejects the coach after 3 indirects; but don't make him/her sit because of a knucklehead on the bench.

[rockyroad]

I have no sympathy for a HC who can't control his own coaching staff. If he/she can't tell their AC's to shutup, that's their problem.

Having said that, I would love to see the seatbelt rule go away. It serves no purpose that I feel is needed, and I have seen (too many times over the years) a coach get tossed because he/she stands up to yell something at a player and the official who is still mad at the coach hit them with their second T...

[Texref]

absolutely agree with you Jeff. I don't really have a problem with the coach continuing to coach and more often than not, that is how we enforced it where I used to live. Where I'm at now, it's a little different and I don't like adding the fuel to the fire of forcing them to sit. I like the suggestion of losing it for a direct T only though.

[26 Year Gap]

I haven't been involved in a game that has had the coach get tossed after losing the box yet. There was one that should have occurred, but I did not want to be the one to issue both Ts. In retrospect, I should have because it would have made the second game better. I have found that coaches tend to coach more rather than carp once they have that physical restraint put on them as a reminder that they go with another outburst. The kid dunking pre-game or a uniform T causing him to sit might be another story. It is the unsporting T that merits the loss of the box IMO, but I don't make the rules.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I haven't been involved in a game that has had the coach get tossed after losing the box yet. There was one that should have occurred, but I did not want to be the one to issue both Ts. In retrospect, I should have because it would have made the second game better. I have found that coaches tend to coach more rather than carp once they have that physical restraint put on them as a reminder that they go with another outburst. The kid dunking pre-game or a uniform T causing him to sit might be another story. It is the unsporting T that merits the loss of the box IMO, but I don't make the rules.

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.