The NON-pregnant one!! No need to stoke that fire! :)

Where does it say in the rule book that officials are to determine who is the HC? I don't see it as my responsibility under any provision. And in this case I was basically being told 'This is the head coach for tonight's game".

If someone tells me they're going to be the head coach for the night, that's good enough for me. But if that person is going to be the head coach, short of any direction from the state or my assignor, that means the other person better not expecting any of the rights that come with being the head coach.

But Jud, that's not what you said happened. You said, " Had a HC who was pregnant and told us prior to the game that she would be sitting but her Assistant Coach would be standing." You identified her as the head coach and then allowed her assistant coach to stand.

Now, if that's how it's going to be, you should have told her, "Only the head coach can stand. If you're going to relinquish your head coaching responsibilities to him, then he is the head coach tonight and you are an assistant."

Has someone asked, who did you recognize for timeouts? If she's the assistant, why allow her to yell at you from the bench or ask questions?

Basically, she can't have it both ways. You can't have a head coach sitting and an acting head coach standing. There's only one head coach.

I was responding to the quote about the rule book. It doesn't say it's our responsibility to designate the HC.
I stated, IMO, I was told 'This is our head coach tonite' and went with it. She had all the rights, responsibility and priviledges of the HC for the night. When she asked for a TO I granted it. If she had a question I answered it. I was just grateful the pregnant coach didn't go into labor! That's TRULY not in the Duties and Responsibilities section.

Nobody said it was. But it is our responsibility to know who the HC is, so that we can be assured that only one coach is exercising the head coaching privileges.

Actually no, you didn't state that in your initial post and that's what I was going by.

I don't know who "she" is. Are you speaking of the assistant coach?

If so, that's fine. But again, I would have told the pregnant coach exactly what I stated earlier. That makes it clear to her that she is fully relinquishing her responsibilities. But that's just me. Again, if it worked for you, that's fine.

Yes the head coach is a woman, which is good since she's pregnant, and the assistant coach is a woman, but I don't think she was/is pregnant.
It worked for me. The discussion then became if that was allowed by rule or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by APG
The rule book is clear...if you go by the book, only the head coach can use the coaching box to stand. The assistant coach is not the head coach.

To which I based my other post stating, in a nutshell, no, it's not clear. If a head coach says they are letting another coach be the head coach for the game, what can we do but say OK? Then treat the 'new'HC the same way we would anyone other HC and the " new " AC as we would any other AC. I'm certainly not going to tell them they can't, unless someone has a ruling to back that up.

I guess I don't understand your question. The rule book is clear in that the head coach is the only one that can stand and use the box...but I think your question is more how does one go about determining who the head coach is. Usually, that will be made clear from the coach himself...

For the purposes of your game, since the head coach said someone else will be standing and using the box, that other person is the head coach...and as such, she'll be the only one who can call timeouts, the only one who complaints should be listened from, and will be responsible for bench personnel and have the burden of any indirects if applicable...plus any other rights/privileges/responsibilities that come with the position.

APG well obviously your misunderstanding led to my misunderstanding:D

We are on the same page. I guess it's a situation that since the book doesn't say they CAN'T they can. As opposed to since the book doesn't say they CAN they can't.
How is that for a confusing statement!?

It's a confusing way of stating that what is not prohibited is generally legal.

Confucius Say ...
 

Better yet: If it ain't illegal, then it's legal.