Libero replacement and yellow cards.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

So, in your example, 8 incorrect reviews does not result in 8 UD's and it's corresponding penalty; 8 incorrect reviews results in either the coach having to burn his remain time outs and when he no longer has a time out left, then LOR/point.

It is a de factor UD, since the penalty is a timeout, and in the absence of a remainint timeout, yes, a loss of rally. Just like a UD. Perhaps the terminology wasn't perfect, but the penalty is the same.

It seems unreasonable and flies int the face of common sense that the rules permit a coach to make repeated challenges of the officials'' rulings.

Then please cite a rule that limits the number of times a coach may use this ability to challenge? Other than taking the time to review, the coach isn't gaining an advantage (the coach would be reviewing the decision with the officials, not coaching his team like a regular timeout). If a coach is willing to go that length and risk a point each time (thereby making it more difficult for his team to win), then it is entirely within their right to do so, whether an official likes it or not.

So, when I commented on what to do with a coach who continually requests reviews and he consistently does not prevail, there is, by rule, a mechanism to deal with that type of situation:
1. An assessment of UD (in addition to LOR/point for the unsuccessful challenge). UD does not only apply to the listed violations ("Unnecessary delay includes, but is not limited to when:") or (and probably more appropriate)

2. The administration of a yellow or red card to the coach (in addition to the LOR/point for the unsuccessful challenge). 12-2-8l specifically addresses this situation and permits this penalty.

I think that 8 unsuccessful challenges goes beyond simply assessing the LOR/point; there is more to be addressed. A coach who does something like that is making a mockery of the game, and of the officials who permit it to continue.

Of course this is all just .02 from a newer official.

I threw the number 8 out here just as a random number. But to the point...you're actually going to assess an additional penalty for something that (a) the NFHS has not limited usage of whatsoever, and (b) there is already a penalty listed?

If a coach is wrong the first 3 times, and challenges a 4th time, are you going to deny the opportunity to challenge if he's right? Or are you going to card him only if he's wrong, thereby assessing a penalty that is above and beyond the specific penalty listed for the legal (albeit annoying) challenge.

And seriously, has anyone had more than one review in a match anyway? In over 3000 matches I've worked, I've had exactly two protests, none of them in NFHS. I really don't see this as being an issue, but the fact is, there is no limit in the rules to how many times a review can be requested.

The point is, no matter how annoying you find the reviews to be, no matter how often it's requested, so long as it's a review of an incorrect rule application (not a review of judgment), it's allowable, with the applicable penalty (and *only* that penalty) to be assessed if the coach is wrong. Anything assessed beyond that is incorrect (and technically, grounds for review in and of itself).

Annoying and inconvenient is not necessarily grounds for penalty.

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by FMadera

It is a de factor UD, since the penalty is a timeout, and in the absence of a remainint timeout, yes, a loss of rally. Just like a UD. Perhaps the terminology wasn't perfect, but the penalty is the same.

It seems to me that the NF, after all these years, would have written UD in the penalty section on 11-2, if that is what they intended, so that officials don't have to say, "Yes, the rule says this, but what it really means is ..."

I think that a close review of the rule book makes it clear that UD is not associated with 11-3, and can be applied in addition to which ever penalty applies when a coach challenges and loses. Actually the case book describes this very situation in which a coach burns his last time out to challenge. During the challenge the coach argues his case beyond the allowable 60 seconds. The referee then charges him with UD and a point is assessed. So in this case the coach was assessed two penalties, the loss of the timeout for the unsuccessful challenge and a point to the opponent for the separate UD penalty.

Originally Posted by FMadera

Then please cite a rule that limits the number of times a coach may use this ability to challenge? Other than taking the time to review, the coach isn't gaining an advantage (the coach would be reviewing the decision with the officials, not coaching his team like a regular timeout). If a coach is willing to go that length and risk a point each time (thereby making it more difficult for his team to win), then it is entirely within their right to do so, whether an official likes it or not.

I've never said that there is a rule that limits the number or times a coach can challenge, each challenge must be recognized and addressed. My point is that the rules provide for penalizing a coach who make repeated challenges intended to disrupt the game.

Similarly, there is no rule that limits the number of times a coach/player can take advantage of the re-serve rule, yet abusing (judgment) the re-serve rule is an unsporting act (12-2-8m & 12-2-9j); there is no rule that limits the number of times a coach/captain can request the serving order, yet excessive (judgment) requests constitute UD (9-9-1c).

Originally Posted by FMadera

I threw the number 8 out here just as a random number. But to the point...you're actually going to assess an additional penalty for something that (a) the NFHS has not limited usage of whatsoever, and (b) there is already a penalty listed?

The additional penalty, whether UD or a card, is assessed for the behavior exhibited by the coach when making repeated challenges (probably more so repeated unsuccessful challenges) that unnecessarily delays the game (UD), or is done so in an effort to disrupt the game (an unsporting act, 12-2-8l).

Originally Posted by FMadera

If a coach is wrong the first 3 times, and challenges a 4th time, are you going to deny the opportunity to challenge if he's right? Or are you going to card him only if he's wrong, thereby assessing a penalty that is above and beyond the specific penalty listed for the legal (albeit annoying) challenge.

I'm never going to deny the coach the opportunity to challenge; but by the time this happens for 4th, 5th, 6th, or whatever time, whether the coach is successful in his challenge or not, I am going to judge whether or not the coach is doing so for the purpose of unnecessarily delaying the game and/or in an effort to disrupt the game. And if, in my judgment, I believe one of those to be true, the rules allow (require?) me to penalize the coach for that conduct, whether that penalty be UD, or a card for an unsporting act.

Originally Posted by FMadera

And seriously, has anyone had more than one review in a match anyway? In over 3000 matches I've worked, I've had exactly two protests, none of them in NFHS. I really don't see this as being an issue, but the fact is, there is no limit in the rules to how many times a review can be requested.

It's my opinion that any discussion that puts our heads into a rule book and promotes discussion and analysis of the rules has value regardless of how often the situation may come up.

Originally Posted by FMadera

The point is, no matter how annoying you find the reviews to be, no matter how often it's requested, so long as it's a review of an incorrect rule application (not a review of judgment), it's allowable, with the applicable penalty (and *only* that penalty) to be assessed if the coach is wrong. Anything assessed beyond that is incorrect (and technically, grounds for review in and of itself).

I believe that the rules allow an official to judge the coach's purpose/conduct behind making repeated requests and also allows for additional penalties based upon the official's judgement of that conduct.

Originally Posted by FMadera

Annoying and inconvenient is not necessarily grounds for penalty.

But unnecessarily delaying and/or disrupting could be.

[FMadera]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

I believe that the rules allow an official to judge the coach's purpose/conduct behind making repeated requests and also allows for additional penalties based upon the official's judgement of that conduct.

Well, you're free to do what you want. I disagree with your statement, but you are free to work a match as you please.

I am curious, however, what rule you would use to justify to an evaluator your decision to sanction a *legal* request by a coach, and what rule allows you to "judge the coach's purpose/conduct behind making repeated requests."

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by FMadera

Well, you're free to do what you want. I disagree with your statement, but you are free to work a match as you please.

I am curious, however, what rule you would use to justify to an evaluator your decision to sanction a *legal* request by a coach, and what rule allows you to "judge the coach's purpose/conduct behind making repeated requests."

The *legal*ity of the request isn't the issue. Within the framework of this discussion you can't ignore the fact that the rule book allows a coach/player to be penalized for *legal* requests if, in the judgment of the official, those *legal* requests constitute UD or are an unsporting act.

As I mentioned in my last post, re-serves are *legal* and there is no defined numerical limit on the number of times a coach/player can take advantage of the re-serve rule, yet abusing the re-serve rule is an unsporting act (12-2-8m & 12-2-9j). Along the same lines, requesting the serving order is *legal* and there is no defined numerical limit on the number of times a coach/captain can request the serving order, yet excessive requests constitute UD (9-9-1c).

In both of the above situations the official must "judge the coach's purpose/conduct behind making repeated requests"; is the coach abusing the re-serve rule .. is the coach making excessive serving order requests.

So, I would justify my decision to penalize repeated unsuccessful challenges in the same manner as I would justify my decision to penalize any other *legal*, yet abusive or excessive request. I would tell the evaluator that based upon the repeated unsuccessful requests to continually review rules, I felt that the coach's conduct/purpose in making those requests was in violation of one or both of the following rules:

1. That the coach's purpose was to unnecessarily delayed the game in violation of 9-9-1: "Unnecessary delay includes, but is not limited to when:".

2. The coach's conduct disrupted the game in violation of rule 12-2-8-L, "Making any excessive requests designed to disrupt the game;".