NFHS Bench Restriction Implications

[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. 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?

[Dakota]

I haven't seen anything that I recall on this, but I would tend to not add to what is actually written. A restricted coach can still coach his team, communicate with the umpires, etc., ... he just may not leave the dugout. Of course, since he also may not shout across the field at the umpires, communicating with them does become more of a challenge!

[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.

[twotakedown]

In our area when there is a coach restricted to the bench/dugout , we still recognize 3-5-7 A coach may leave the bench/dugout area to attend to a player who becomes ill or injured if recognized by the umpire.

So we go ahead and let the coach administer treatment if they have been previously restricted. But on a side note if the team has 5 coaches and it's an assistant who's restricted then we tend to keep that person on the bench.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by twotakedown

In our area when there is a coach restricted to the bench/dugout , we still recognize 3-5-7 A coach may leave the bench/dugout area to attend to a player who becomes ill or injured if recognized by the umpire.

So we go ahead and let the coach administer treatment if they have been previously restricted. But on a side note if the team has 5 coaches and it's an assistant who's restricted then we tend to keep that person on the bench.

This is handled correctly in my opinion. In the event of an injury, the head coach should be the person representing the team in dealings with an injured player.

There are certain circumstances where the rulebook needs to be set aside in the interest of safety and this is one of those times. I know personally, if I have an obviously injured player, the play is killed and the coaches are walking on that field. I don't even call for the coaches, because if it is that serious, they are already on their way out. I'm not penalizing a coach for coming out when it is obvious there is an injury. The same goes in basketball or volleyball.

If it were an assistant coach, they are staying put on the bench at least initially (unless they are also the trainer, which I have seen). The assistant coach (unless also the trainer), does not have the same level of responsibility as the HC does.

[twotakedown]

I would think that the coach would have to communicate through his players and in turn the players would have to interact with the umpire(s). But I agree with you Manny, I still believe that the coach is still in charge of the team. Now he or she just have to do business in a different fashion. Plus what if there is only one coach? Say lower level game like middle school or frosh. If the others believe that a restriction is just like and ejection, then the game is over! How are you going to explain that one to your supervisor? "Oh I called the game because I had to restrict to coach to the bench since they only had one coach" I don't think that would fly.

I say work though the players if you can. Not ideal but something to think about...

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?
Players may make appeals Rule 2-1-1

2. Question an umpire's rule misinterpretation?
Captain can ask that the correct ruling be made Rule 10-1-4

3. Lodge a protest of an umpire's rule misinterpretation?
Nothing specifically about coach, states "offended team" Rule 10-2-3i

4. Make a decision on an option play (e.g., catcher's obstruction)?
COACH DECISION on illegal pitch Rule 6-1 Penalty Exception 2 Maybe call a captain and get the coach's answer though her???

5. Request Time to have a defensive conference next to the dugout?
player can ask for a conference and be granted time by an umpire Rule 5-2-1e

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. 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?

I

[IRISHMAFIA]

IMO, "dugout restriction" has more to do with adult supervision and participation than the game. A high school coach is legally responsible for the charges of the school which means a coach recognized by the school must always be with the team. Eject the only coach, the game is over.

Being restricted to the dugout is simply a tether limiting the coach's geographical range. And it usually tends to tether their tongue or risk ejection