Coaching box restriction after a T

[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.

[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.

[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.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

4. Delayed return to the court. Especially, after a throw-in. Penalty is a T. If it became a violation like #1, it would get called, and the practice would discontinue.

[actuary77]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

I believe running OOB under the basket to get around defenders also falls under the rule above and is illegal in high school, but yet I very seldom see it get called. I'm among the guilty here since in my 8 years of HS officiating, I've only called this once and both the player and coach had no clue what I was calling. I tried my best to explain to the coach that this is a violation, but he wasn't buying it.

This past season, in a Boys Soph game, I had the same player do it maybe 3 times during the first half. I passed on all of them. During half time, I discussed with the coach that this is illegal, he didn't challenge me, and I asked him to tell his player not to do it again. Never happened again in the 2nd half. I'm sure some will frown at how I handled this situation. I might add that in all instances where the player violated, there was no significant advantage gained imho.

Not sure about NCAA, but I think it's legal in the NBA since it happens all the time.

[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.

[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.