Silly Contradiction

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is too much video tape not to apply the rule in this situation.

Amen to that. At the NCAA level video goes without saying even with D3 games since they may be online, let alone the videos shot by the individual schools. One of the NCAAW video rule updates last season dealt with assistants who came off the bench in a televised D1 game in a situation that nearly turned into a fight. The officials were taken to task in the video for not ejecting the assistants.

NCAA or HS you never know who is sitting in the stands and/or who has a video camera. If an assistant comes onto the court during a fight in a high school game and he/she isn’t tossed there’s a better than average chance that info is getting back to the local governing body for that sport…and you’re sunk. Those who hire and pay us will have a lot easier time defending us if we follow the rule book.

[Bad Zebra]

In addition to the excellent points above, I think the Fed is further emphasizing that ONLY the head coach is responsible for the conduct of the players.

If they allowed assistants onto the court in this scenario, then the assistant becomes an active, recognized participant in the management of the team as a whole. I doubt the Fed wants to start legislating THEIR behavior in addition to the head coach.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

In addition to the excellent points above, I think the Fed is further emphasizing that ONLY the head coach is responsible for the conduct of the players.

If they allowed assistants onto the court in this scenario, then the assistant becomes an active, recognized participant in the management of the team as a whole. I doubt the Fed wants to legislating THEIR behavior in addition to the head coach.

But I wouldn't be surprised in the future if they did. Did anyone notice there is an entire new section on responsibilities of game management?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

In addition to the excellent points above, I think the Fed is further emphasizing that ONLY the head coach is responsible for the conduct of the players.

If they allowed assistants onto the court in this scenario, then the assistant becomes an active, recognized participant in the management of the team as a whole. I doubt the Fed wants to legislating THEIR behavior in addition to the head coach.

You know what? In a fight situation, I WANT the assistants as an active, recognized participant in the management of the team in this specific situation. Just because one could allow assistants to help in this situation doesn't mean you have to extend any other "rights" afforded to the head coach.

I'm not sure I understand your last point either. The NFHS already legislates behavior allowed by the assistant versus a head coach.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by APG

I'm not sure I understand your last point either. The NFHS already legislates behavior allowed by the assistant versus a head coach.

Not exactly. They legislate what "bench personnel" are allowed to do; assistant coaches are lumped in there, they are not recognized as anything beyond that.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

But I wouldn't be surprised in the future if they did. Did anyone notice there is an entire new section on responsibilities of game management?

"Game management" is different from "assistant coach managing the game"

And while it might be new to have it in the rules book, the information isn't new (as a general statement -- I didn't read / compare every line).

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

"Game management" is different from "assistant coach managing the game"

And while it might be new to have it in the rules book, the information isn't new (as a general statement -- I didn't read / compare every line).

Me either, I just noticed that it was all grey and didn't remember it from previous years so I figured it was all new.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by Adam

Not exactly. They legislate what "bench personnel" are allowed to do; assistant coaches are lumped in there, they are not recognized as anything beyond that.

Yep. I think that's very intentional. I get the impression that they (FED) are very deliberately avoiding any additional recognition beyond "bench personnel".

I disagree with APG on the asst.'s role in a fight. Maybe it's a location thing but I haven't really seen many asst.'s that I'm confident would diffuse an explosive situation. In a few instances, they'd more likely escalate it. I'd just as soon leave that responsibility to the head coach and sort out the collateral damage afterward.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JetMetFan

The logic I can see is that the head coach is the person in charge.

Camron, you say there's "no way" you're tossing the assistant if he/she enters the court. How about if Team B's coach points it out to you and/or your partner? I know if I'm Team B's HC or assistant I'll be pointing it out because that's potentially two FTs and the ball for my team.

Do you also give those coaches/assistants a T for "Attempting to influence an official’s decision." (10-4-1-b)? If you're following the rule that is clearly written, you must give them a T for even mentioning this.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You're allowed to have opinions about whether a rule is right or fair or not.

But it really bothers me that an official (of any sport) would state that they know and understand the rule but would never enforce it correctly - on purpose.

On the same line as above...

Are you saying that you call T's on coaches or bench personnel when they say travel or foul from the bench. Their only purpose in stating it is trying to get you to call it, trying to influence your decision. I doubt you call a T despite a clear and direct rule that says you should. Why not?

Do you give T"s when you see an assistant standing up at the bench in normal play or do you have them sit down? Why not issue the T? There is nothing in the rule that excepts it.

When a substitute steps one or two steps into the court before being beckoned but they stop when you tell them to wait, do you also T them? Didn't think so.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Do you also give coaches/assistants a T for "Attempting to influence an official’s decision." (10-4-1-b)? If you're following the rule that is clearly written, you must give them a T for even mentioning this.

Ah. Lovely. The "I can come up with a rule no one enforces to the letter, so that means I can do whatever the heck I want out there" defense.

Sure. Call whatever you like. That case play was not written for you ... it only applies to everyone else.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Ah. Lovely. The "I can come up with a rule no one enforces to the letter, so that means I can do whatever the heck I want out there" defense.

Sure. Call whatever you like. That case play was not written for you ... it only applies to everyone else.

There are a lot of times we do not call T's that could be called because they don't make the game better and the offender doesn't deserve the punishment. If you want to referee strictly in a black and white world, go right ahead but you can't be honest and do it only where you like and, at the same time, insist that others must call one or the other just because it is listed in one spot while the others are listed somewhere else.

And as far as I know, the NFHS hasn't published a list of which ones to call and which ones to not call...they're all to be called according to anything they've ever published. But, we know that really isn't what is done. So, if you're not going to call them all, then you have to apply some amount of intelligent game management to decide when it is the right time to utilize the T. Even if the book, case, or interpretation gives you a time you can call it, it doesn't mean it is always the right time to call it....even if you are backed up by the book.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Do you also give those coaches/assistants a T for "Attempting to influence an official’s decision." (10-4-1-b)? If you're following the rule that is clearly written, you must give them a T for even mentioning this.



...

That's based on the judgment of the official. if they merely point it out, they are not attempting to influence my decision b/c I haven't made one yet. If I make a decision and then they argue about it, that's "attempting to influence an official's decision."

[APG]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Yep. I think that's very intentional. I get the impression that they (FED) are very deliberately avoiding any additional recognition beyond "bench personnel".

I disagree with APG on the asst.'s role in a fight. Maybe it's a location thing but I haven't really seen many asst.'s that I'm confident would diffuse an explosive situation. In a few instances, they'd more likely escalate it. I'd just as soon leave that responsibility to the head coach and sort out the collateral damage afterward.

Who are the assistant coaches in your area? Do they tend not to be the lower level coaches? Do you think in a JV game, that if a fight were to start, that these very same people, being the head coach now, would escalate the situation?

I could understand that feeling in some AAU type scenario, but I find it hard to believe that the overwhelming majority of assistants, being adults, would be peacekeepers in this situation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

That's based on the judgment of the official. if they merely point it out, they are not attempting to influence my decision b/c I haven't made one yet. If I make a decision and then they argue about it, that's "attempting to influence an official's decision."

You're assuming they don't think you see it. From their tone, that's rarely the case. Frankly, AFAC, they are absolutely trying to influence our calls; we just don't follow this one to the letter unless we want to fall back on it.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You're allowed to have opinions about whether a rule is right or fair or not.

But it really bothers me that an official (of any sport) would state that they know and understand the rule but would never enforce it correctly - on purpose.

Longhorn,

I think applying common sense is the question here. Nobody enforces all rules by the letter all the time. On purpose. I've seen opinions on both sides of this topic that make a lot of sense to me. I bet rules makers expect us to apply common sense, as well.