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

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.

2-3

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.

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.

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.

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).

I agree, and frankly, if and when they ever do, I won't be surprised no matter what they say.

If they provided clarity, then 2-3 wouldn't apply at all. ;)

(And, so that I am clear -- the rules are clear that the assistant cannot stand after this. I also think it's clear (enough) that the assistant can get additional indirect Ts. The only issue is when does that process start -- and, for me, I'm waiting until the HC leaves *OR* until I can get to the AC and say "If he continues to act up, you will have to leave, too.")

Since we have explicitly-defined definitions regarding what it means to be a player, substitute, bench personnel, team member, etc., it seems odd that there is nothing in the rules to define what it means to be the head coach given that the term "head coach" appears (by my count using the online search function) 49 times in the rule book. It's a meaningful role, yet we have no instruction regarding what exactly the term means.

Though my OP situation may be far-fetched, head coaches are disqualified pretty frequently, but we have no rule basis regarding how that situation should be handled with regard to a new head coach. Many of the rules of this game hinge on technical definitions and this is a pretty large vacancy in that sense.

I agree with Adam that we should require an adult bench personnel to act as head coach at all times. Here's my idea for how this could be handled in the rules:

Each team must name a head coach on the roster. This head coach will remain the head coach unless he is unable to continue in his role. If he is unable to continue in his role, an individual must be immediately named to replace him. He continues to be the head coach until the referee asks that a replacement head coach be named, at which point the person named becomes the head coach.

If the replacement head coach had been charged with a technical foul previously in the game, he will lose coaching-box privileges. If any head coach loses coaching-box privileges at any time, coaching-box privileges are lost for his team for the remainder of the game.

That part is redundant because if the replacement HC had been charges with a T, then the HC would have lost his coaching box privileges.

And, that part is already in one of the interps (not that it couldn't be restated and made part of the rules)

Not an issue
 

I don't forse this being an issue. The HC is the HC until he is out the door and at that time one of the ACs will assume a lead role and become the go to guy. I would not hang the behavior of the HC on the "lead" AC. Instead, I would include it all in my incedent report to the UIL which will get the HC in a lot of hot water for acting a fool after being ejected. Don't know what processes there are in other states, but it sure limits those kinds of problems with coaches here.

I'm using the logic of when a disqualified player becomes bench personnel to this situation.

A disqualified player becomes bench personnel at the point the head coach has been notified. So If the disqualified decides to make a remark to the official on his way to the bench, after the HC has been notified, that is an indirect on the HC even if it occurred before the player was off the floor.

Using that logic, if the HC has been DQed and de ides he needs to take another shot at the officials before leaving, I'm hanging that as an indirect on the newly anointed replacement HC.