Silly Contradiction

[JRutledge]

I have no problem with the rule. Assistants are not responsible for the team the way the HC is under the rules. If you do not want to worry about this stuff, do not have kids in the game that cause those kinds of problems. Coaches know when they have a knucklehead and if you want to avoid these situations keep them on the bench of take them off the team. This is why I do not like talking to assistants in the first place. The HC is the guy that has the ultimate responsiblity. If they want that responsiblity then get a HC job and I will treat them like a HC.

There is too much video tape not to apply the rule in this situation. And with the way things have gone nuts with a very public event in our state, I am not going to clearly ignore a rule like this.

Peace

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.