Silly Contradiction
 

In the two snipped situations below, does anyone else think the opposite rulings are a bit silly.

SITUATION 6: Players A1 and B1 are fighting each other away from the ball and play is stopped. The head coach of Team A rushes onto the court to stop the fight.

RULING: ... The head coach is allowed to enter the court without being beckoned by an official when there is a fight so there is not a penalty assessed on him/her for this action. ....(4-19-4; 4-36; 10-4-5 Note)


SITUATION 8: A fight breaks out between A1 and B1 during a dead ball and clock-stopped situation. The assistant coach from Team A rushes onto the floor to assist with stopping the fight.

RULING: .... The assistant coach is assessed a flagrant technical foul and disqualified from the contest for entering the floor during the fight. The assistant coach is not allowed to enter the floor to help with stopping a fight....(4-19-4; 10-4-5)

If a coach is coming onto the floor to be of help, assistant or otherwise, there is NO WAY I will be calling a T on them. If anything, I'm going to thank them for helping get things under control.

Perhaps the NFHS thinks assistant coaches are less self-controlled than head coaches?

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.

Luckily, or for whatever reason, I have only had ONE fight happen. And that was in my very FIRST varsity game. (I reviewed the film later, and should have seen it coming)...but, that is another story.


I agree Camron...and I have already thought of this scenario...if a Coach had come out on the court to help with a fight, before this new rule, I would have "beckoned" him. Same goes for an assistant now, he will have been "beckoned".;)

Check with your local association but the rule change may not leave the option to "beckon" anyone else. The rule says the HC can come out. It doesn't mention anyone else.

I remember this past season, there was a college game where some assistants were tossed for doing nothing more than break up a fight. My position on the rule hasn't changed from then. Assuming the assistant is there in a peacekeeping role, I'm sure not going toss him for helping to break up a fight.

NCAAW - I won't speak to NCAAM - changed its rule for the coming season. The HC + one assistant can leave the bench. After that we start tossing coaches.

Everybody Stay Here ...
 

... and they keep things under control by making sure, while the head coach is on the floor helping to stop the fight, that the bench players do not follow their head coach onto the floor. If we end up with players, bench personnel, head coaches, assistant coaches, and officials, all on the floor at the same time during a fight, than things can get really complicated.

My take is that this new interpretation applies only to a which coach can enter the floor without being beckoned. I'll follow the lead from my local interpreter.

hairy as hell...
 

The video that I have seen of fights around here get pretty hairy with mommas, daddies, cheerleaders, scorekeepers, principals, etc. on the court and most seem to be restoring order. I think it will be hard for me to catch the assistant coach out there also trying to restore order.

I think it's a stretch to even allow them on the court if they are "beckoned."

The NCAAM rule is (I think) the same.

I agree that the rule should / could allow it, and one of our interpreters here suggested the same thing you did.

State director, in online rules meeting which came out yesterday and is taken by both officials and coaches, offered the direction that assistant coaches were to remain on the sidelines to maintain control of the benches, presumably keeping the players from leaving the bench area.
That made sense to me. If they do.

Part of the explanation given to us was that it would be better for the assisstant(s) to keep the bench in order ...

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.

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

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.

Pandora's Box?
 

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

I think the fact is, there ACs are risking penalty if they come on the court. If they do it, and don't get penalized, they got lucky. My advice to all coaches would be to have the ACs stay on the bench and mind the players there. Deviate at your own risk.

Honestly ... if they wanted leeway here, they would not post a caseplay to cover it specifically and show the difference.

Maybe, but it will still be judged according to the desires of the powers of every geographic location in the country.

Besides, there are case plays for multiple and false double fouls that no one really ever wants to see called.

My scenario isn’t attempting to influence an official’s decision if the HC/assistant says “Ref, their assistant is on the court.” If that’s the case then they’re pointing out fact. I could always choose to ignore them.

Now, when I’m sorting out what happened after the mayhem and I explain the penalties to both coaches and, in that explanation, I neglect to mention a flagrant technical on Team A’s assistant and the HC of Team B reminds me Team A’s assistant was on the court, what then? Better for Team A’s HC to be upset for me doing what I’m supposed to do – which, again, can be defended by my supervisor – than Team B’s HC to be upset for me NOT doing what I’m supposed to do.

That is exactly what they're doing. If they didn't want to try to influence you to call them for it, they wouldn't mention it.

The fact remains that despite how many case plays there are around technical fouls, there are FAR, FAR more that fit the rule and/or case play which go uncalled than are called. This one, even with a case play, seems like a plumbing job.

No, it's exactly as Jet and I have already said, it's pointing out a fact. After I address the act and/or their comment and they continue chirp about it, THEN it becomes trying to influence an official's decision.

And your comparison between a statement a coach makes and a physical act that can be seen by all makes no sense. If you don't want to call a T for an AC breaking up a fight, good. But, don't make up some apples & oranges comparison in order to justify it; just stand by "I won't call it.'

Well, if I'm the official, I would know whether or not I saw it. If I saw it, I would say, "Coach, I see that". If I didn't see it, I would say, "Ok, I got you ( or thanks coach)." It's what is or isn't said by the coach(es) from that point on that, in my judgment, determines whether or not they are trying to influence my decision.

Okay, say I agree with you. You’re still not addressing part two of my previous comment. Team B’s HC advises you of the situation. You don’t give a flagrant technical to Team A’s assistant. After the game, Team B’s coach tells his AD. His AD contacts your supervisor/assignor and sends him/her a DVD of the game – a distinct possibility regardless since there was a fight. Your supervisor/assignor looks at the video and determines the HC of Team B was correct.

You tell your supervisor/assignor…what? You didn’t eject the assistant because you didn’t want to? I’ll admit honesty might be the best way to go since chances are you’re going to lose part, if not all, of your schedule but none of the answers you give is going to be satisfactory.

I'll tell my supervisor that the assistant was nothing but helpful and beneficial to the situation and had been nothing but that the entire game and it would have been completely against the spirit of the rule to have issued a T. And I'm pretty sure he'd agree with me.

My point is that whether you see it or not is irrelevant to whether they are trying to influence your call. I think we can dance around it every day and twice on Sunday, the fact is they're trying to influence us. Whether they're yelling "travel," "that's a foul," "three seconds," or "carry," they're trying to influence our calls.

The fact is, we don't normally issue a T on this unless they get persistent with it.

I'm not dancing around anything. Following that logic, anytime a coach opens his mouth he is "trying to influence a call" and therefore should never address an official.

It is the judgment of that individual official whether or not a coach is trying to influence a decision based upon that official's interpretation of the conversation. It's that simple to me. And to compare this to the physical act of an assistant coach being on floor is quite ludicrous, IMHO.

I'm with Camron here. If an adult comes on the court and clearly all he does is help separate participants in a fight or help with an injury, no matter who he is, there's not gonna be a penalty from me.

As part of my pregame I ask the head coach if there are special issues with any player, such as asthma, seizures or an injury that may come into play. Before the rule change, I would go on to tell this coach that if something happens with this (or any other) player that legitimately needs your attention out on the court, consider yourself beckoned, don't wait for me.

For me, that same philosophy applies to the matter at hand.

Not anytime he opens his mouth. If he asks, "why wasn't that a foul" or "did you see that travel," then I'll take that as a legimate question. But I can't see "that's a foul" or "that's a travel" or "you have got to call that carry" as anything but an attempt to influence our decisions. The fact is, to me, this violates the letter of the rule.

That said, I don't really deal well with a coach playing Jeapordy, either, but that's a matter of judgment and HTBT.

I'm not saying we should call it, or even address it, because doing so until he violates the Ps (persistent, personal, or profane) is going to severely limit one's schedule. I just concur with Camron that this is a case where we do not follow the letter of the rule.

Now, whether it gets applied to the AC coming onto the court is a different matter. Personally, I'm not inclined to want to toss an AC who actually came onto the court to control the fight. However, I'm also not inclined to ignore this very clear interpretation, and if I have a fight this year and an AC comes on to help, he'll find himself outside the gym for the remainder of the game. I doubt it will be that big of a deal, since the HC will likely want him watching little Johnny in the locker room.

Here’s what the NFHS wrote about the rule change:

What I take from this is the idea is to deal with the chaos on the court while keeping other people – mainly players – off the court. If an assistant comes on the court that’s one less person to keep an eye on the other bench personnel. Bad idea.

The “it’s not the spirit of the rule” thought process in this situation explains why coaches get upset with us and say we’re not consistent from game to game or crew to crew. The rule is there and so is the interpretation. There’s nothing in there that says “if an assistant comes onto the court and is a peacemaker he/she can remain in the game.” If we forget it that’s one thing but if we know what it is and decide not to enforce it because we don’t want to be the bad guy that’s where problems start. The coaches know the rule and even if they don’t, that’s not my problem.

There is game management, there is security in many cases, they can get involved if it gets that out of hand. Otherwise the the HC is responsible for his bench and if the assistants cannot do their job and just keep players on the bench, they will be penalized accordingly when they come onto the court.

Peace