Coaching box restriction after a T

johnny d

I think we should give them a choice they can either sit or take a punch in the gut from the official who gave them the T and then remain standing for the rest of the game. Actually, we should just eliminate the box and let them roam the entire court, inbounds and out, yelling and screaming whatever they like. This would add some great entertainment value and possibly increase crowd size!😃

JetMetFan

I live in both worlds during my H.S. season: In NJ they have to sit. In NYC they don't and they're given NCAA coaching box restrictions.

JRut I agree with you. The times I've had to ring up a coach in NJ it just seems to create more animosity when they sit down. They also seem to spend more time grumbling under their breath since they can't get up. In NYC they seem to let off steam by walking up and down the sidelines.

I like BNR's idea: lock 'em down if it's a direct unsporting technical.

APG

I wouldn't mind if we allowed coach's the use of the coaching box even after they're issued a T. I get the premise of why the rule is the way it is now, but it seems to me, it's can just add more fuel to a situation that's already a bit volatile.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Jeff:

Like you, and others, I have lived in both worlds at the same time: NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's. I do not have a problem at the college level with the HC not losing his Coaching Box privileges. BUT, I feel that there is a big drop off in professionalism between the average high school HC and just about any college HC.

I have officiated college games that have been coached by some pretty intense HCs, but if in the 34 years that I officiated men's and women's college basketball, I honestly do not think that I did not call more that thirty (30) TFs on HCs or their assistants during the entire college career; and I ejected only two college coaches during that same time. BUT at the high school (including jr. H.S.), AAU/YBOA/AYBTour, CYO, and other youth groups, it is an all together different story.

During the 90's when I used to officiate 400 to 425 basketball games a year (including 25 to 30 college games and 80 to 90 JrHS/HS games a season, remember MichiganHSAA played its girls' basketball during the Fall back then), I could go my entire college season and not come close to whacking a coach, and have as many as 10 to 15 against JrHS/HS coaches. And don't even get me started with AAUY/YBOA/AYBTour tournaments. I should note that CYO was not too much trouble in our area because the Athletic Director for CYO is a basketball official himself and the coaches (both basketball and soccer; I officiated H.S. and CYO soccer back then) knew that he was not going to tolerate any nonsense.

Just my take on the situation.

MTD, Sr.

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

Bad Zebra wrote
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

26 Year Gap wrote
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.

JugglingReferee

JRutledge wrote
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

JugglingReferee wrote
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

rockyroad wrote
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

BadNewsRef wrote
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

Maineac wrote
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

AllPurposeGamer wrote
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

rockyroad wrote
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.