Coaching box restriction after a T

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

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.

By rule, the officials were correct. Even standing to yell at a player is a violation of the bench rule in this case. Not that I have ever gone after this when the coach is only talking to his players (assuming he promptly sits down.)

That said, I like it the way it is. It's just a little extra incentive for a HC to keep control of his bench. Would 2 FTs alone be enough? I don't know, but as MTD noted, HS coaches (especially below the V level) have a greater chance to be tools than college coaches.

The lower level you get, the more incentive they need.