When does designated bench personnel become the HC following DQ of the HC?

[La Rikardo]

Adult bench personnel for Team A are as follows: A Head Coach, A Assistant Coach 1, and A Assistant Coach 2.

Prior to the game and after the officials' jurisdiction has begun, team member A1 dunks a dead ball. A1 is charged with an unsporting bench technical foul; this foul is also charged indirectly to A Head Coach.

During the first quarter, A Assistant Coach 2 addresses an official disrespectfully and is charged with an unsporting bench technical foul; this foul is also charged indirectly to A Head Coach.

During the second quarter, a fight breaks out on the court. Bench personnel team member A6 leaves the confines of the bench during the fight. A6 is charged with a flagrant bench technical foul and is disqualified; this foul is also charged indirectly to A Head Coach. A Head Coach is disqualified for having been charged with three technical fouls. A Assistant Coach 1 is designated as A Head Coach's replacement as head coach for Team A.

(a) Before or (b) after A Head Coach is informed that he has been disqualified, A Head Coach disrespectfully addresses an official and is charged with an unsporting bench technical foul.

Shall A Head Coach's foul be charged indirectly to A Assistant Coach 1? If not, when does A Assistant Coach 1 officially become the head coach for the purpose of being charged indirectly for bench technical fouls? Additionally, if A Assistant Coach 1 is not charged indirectly with a bench technical foul, may he stand within the coaching box?

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by La Rikardo

Adult bench personnel for Team A are as follows: A Head Coach, A Assistant Coach 1, and A Assistant Coach 2.

Prior to the game and after the officials' jurisdiction has begun, team member A1 dunks a dead ball. A1 is charged with an unsporting bench technical foul; this foul is also charged indirectly to A Head Coach.

During the first quarter, A Assistant Coach 2 addresses an official disrespectfully and is charged with an unsporting bench technical foul; this foul is also charged indirectly to A Head Coach.

During the second quarter, a fight breaks out on the court. Bench personnel team member A6 leaves the confines of the bench during the fight. A6 is charged with a flagrant bench technical foul and is disqualified; this foul is also charged indirectly to A Head Coach. A Head Coach is disqualified for having been charged with three technical fouls. A Assistant Coach 1 is designated as A Head Coach's replacement as head coach for Team A.

(a) Before or (b) after A Head Coach is informed that he has been disqualified, A Head Coach disrespectfully addresses an official and is charged with an unsporting bench technical foul.

Shall A Head Coach's foul be charged indirectly to A Assistant Coach 1? If not, when does A Assistant Coach 1 officially become the head coach for the purpose of being charged indirectly for bench technical fouls? Additionally, if A Assistant Coach 1 is not charged indirectly with a bench technical foul, may he stand within the coaching box?

Once the HC receives the 3rd indirect, the first thing that needs to be taken care of is for him to leave the gym. Not even thinking about who the designated coach will be. If the HC offers a "parting shot" and gets another T on his way out I don't think there is anything by rule that says whoever subsequently becomes the DC is given an indirect for the HC's final outburst. Whoever is finally designated to be the coach does not get coaching box privileges even if he doesn't have technical fouls. He is still not the HC.

[bob jenkins]

2-3

[HokiePaul]

Your assumption in the OP seems to be that after the HC is disqualified, there is a new "HC". Instead, I've been taught to think of it as "designating" a coach for the purpose of requesting timeouts, communicating with officials, etc. But this is still an AC. Assistant coaches don't get indirects.

Anyone have different understanding of this? With this approach, using rule 2-3 isn't necessary. Penalize as you would any other situation minus any indirect technical to the HC who is already gone.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Your assumption in the OP seems to be that after the HC is disqualified, there is a new "HC". Instead, I've been taught to think of it as "designating" a coach for the purpose of requesting timeouts, communicating with officials, etc. But this is still an AC. Assistant coaches don't get indirects.

Anyone have different understanding of this? With this approach, using rule 2-3 isn't necessary. Penalize as you would any other situation minus any indirect technical to the HC who is already gone.

Interesting, I'm going to hold someone accountable for the actions of the bench. Each team needs a HC, as only the HC may request a TO from the bench. Obviously, he doesn't get to use the coaching box, but he is going to be accountable for the knuckleheads on the bench..

That said, the HC is the HC until he leaves the floor. I'm not holding an AC accountable for his HC's stupidity like this. Once the dust settles and the HC has left the visual confines, then any future shenanigans from his bench will cost him.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by HokiePaul

Your assumption in the OP seems to be that after the HC is disqualified, there is a new "HC". Instead, I've been taught to think of it as "designating" a coach for the purpose of requesting timeouts, communicating with officials, etc. But this is still an AC. Assistant coaches don't get indirects.

Anyone have different understanding of this? With this approach, using rule 2-3 isn't necessary. Penalize as you would any other situation minus any indirect technical to the HC who is already gone.

I believe you are correct. There is only one HC. Once he's gone, the head coach's rule no longer applies.

That said, HokiePaul brings up a good point. A Pandora's Box is open; if 2-3 no longer applies, who is accountable for the conduct of bench personnel? Say bench personnel get 16 more Ts as the game progresses. If these aren't indirect to the acting head coach, and provided he behaves, he stays.

And yes, I was exaggerating with 16. In truth if it gets that bad, Team A would be making a travesty of the game and my partner(s) and I would start to consider a forfeit.

[Adam]

If you're not going to have a HC, then no one can request TO from the bench.

Frankly, the spirit of the rule seems to me to have someone on the bench accountable.

This team is obviously in need of accountability.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Adam

If you're not going to have a HC, then no one can request TO from the bench.

Frankly, the spirit of the rule seems to me to have someone on the bench accountable.

This team is obviously in need of accountability.

This is true. And I agree. I guess it would be nice if the rules provided a little more clarity on how 2-3 applies after a HC ejection.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

I believe you are correct. There is only one HC. Once he's gone, the head coach's rule no longer applies.

That said, HokiePaul brings up a good point. A Pandora's Box is open; if 2-3 no longer applies, who is accountable for the conduct of bench personnel? Say bench personnel get 16 more Ts as the game progresses. If these aren't indirect to the acting head coach, and provided he behaves, he stays.

And yes, I was exaggerating with 16. In truth if it gets that bad, Team A would be making a travesty of the game and my partner(s) and I would start to consider a forfeit.

The penalty in and of itself holds the bench accountable. The penalty is 2 shots and the ball, and disqualification after 2 Ts or one Flagrant T. So the Designated coach may stay if he behaves, but all the troublemakers on the bench might be disqualified (and told to leave the confines with an adult).