NFHS Bench Restriction Implications

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Someone on another discussion board wants to know what implications beyond being confined to the dugout apply to a head coach who has been issued a bench restriction. For example, is the head coach no longer able to:

1. Appeal a batting-out-of-order violation?

2. Question an umpire's rule misinterpretation?

3. Lodge a protest of an umpire's rule misinterpretation?

4. Make a decision on an option play (e.g., catcher's obstruction)?

5. Request Time to have a defensive conference next to the dugout?

Some on that board feel that the bench restriction of the head coach is equivalent to an ejection of a player who, by rule, is allowed to stay in the dugout. In other words, the head coach is no longer the head coach and cannot participate in the game in any way, shape or form. I, OTOH, feel that the rule doesn't prevent anything more than simply disallowing the head coach to exit the dugout (unless he/she has to tend to an injured player). That doesn't mean I have to put up with his/her crap if the reason I restricted him/her was to shut him/her up for being a whiner. I'm not sure the rules really allow for this. We have been told this is not what the restriction is for in our area. But if he/she is simply in there because he/she failed to report a substitute twice in the game, is he/she really "gone" from the game for all intents and purposes?

Unfortunately, there's nothing in the rule book or case book that I can find to justify my position other than the wording (or lack thereof) in NFHS Rule 2-48. It doesn't stipulate what the head coach can no longer do other than step out of the dugout to carry out his/her coaching responsibilities (e.g., no base coaching, no conferencing at the circle, no reporting of substitutions, etc.)

What say you? Have you seen something written like in the NFHS Preseason Guide for Softball that NFHS puts out?

In My opinion, there has been a lot of issues with the restriction vs ejection. I know we have had the discussion in our area that an offense that calls for an ejection needs to get that. We can be "nice" and restrict when the rules call for an ejection.

I have only had one case to restrict a coach. That was not a behavior issue that lead to the restriction but bad luck. The coach was in a car accident on the way to the school. His uniform was in the locker room. As a result of the accident he never made it to the school to get the uniform. The problem was his clothes were blue jeans and a school sweatshirt. Blue jeans are not approved to wear on the field, so he was restricted to the dugout. He knew he was restricted before the game and "self-imposed" the penalty on himself. I think the umpires would have given him a break, but the opposing coach would not, so he stayed in the dugout for the double header. He sent his assistant out for "routine" issues, and called the umpires over if it was a more serious issue. We had no problems with it. He didn't lose the right to be head coach, he lost the right to come on the field. That was all.

The opposing coach almost got tossed by my partner (and maybe should have been) for arguing calls in the second game. I am very tolerant, but if it had been me, it would have been my first ejection from a high school game.