Coaching box restriction after a T
 

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

100% agreed.... I have never been a fan of the seatbelt rule.

I dont mind it, kinda lets them know they are not Rick Pitino.

I think they only should sit for a direct T caused by their own unsporting behavior, otherwise let them keep the box. Especially hate it when I have to do extra monitoring of the HC just b/c a kid dunked in warm-ups.

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!:D

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Is it better to tell the "stander" directly, or go through the head coach? I've been doing the latter.

What is "better" is up to you or the circumstance. I usually say it so that the head coach can always hear me if I say anything to the assistant. But if the HC is reasonable, I will tell him directly. It really depends on the situation and how long I have to give the information.

Peace

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

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

Flexible Seatbelt ...
 

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.

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.

Delay Return ...
 

Agree. Good point.

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.

The only thing that is illegal under NBA rules is for an offensive player leaving the court on the endline, for the purpose of setting a screen, in one's frontcourt. It's a violation and the ball is awarded to the defense at the free throw line extended.

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.

So it's illegal to set a screen OOB outside the endline but it's legal to go OOB to get around a screen established inbounds?

Here's the NCAA Rule (9-4-1)

A player who steps out of bounds under his/her own volition and then becomes the first player to touch the ball after returning to the playing court has committed a violation.

The exception is if you go out of bounds to receive a pass before the ball is inbounded after a made/awarded FG or FT. If your teammate doesn't pass you the ball you're allowed to go back inbounds and be the first player to touch it.

That would be correct.

Is this strictly an NBA rule? I believe no player can go out of bounds like that in NFHS, though there's not much point calling it if a defensive player does it (unless, maybe, the ball is loose).

Yes, that should be obvious.

Peace