Coaching box restriction after a T

[JRutledge]

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

[Tio]

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

[tref]

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

[Raymond]

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.

[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!

[Maineac]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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]

Originally Posted by Maineac

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?

[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]

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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