Assistant Coach question

[SCHSref]

Can an assistant coach be ejected, tossed, etc. for mouthing at a ref?

[HLinNC]

Why would you think they can't?

[zoom]

Absolutely,

9-8-1: No coach, substitute, athletic trainer or other team attendant shall act in an unsportsmanlike manner once the game officials assume authority for the contest.  Examples are, but are not limited to:
9-8-1c: Disrespectfully addressing a game official.
PENALTY: Nonplayer foul (S27) - 15 yards....  Arts. 1,2,3 - Any single foul judged by the game official to be flagrant is disqualification.

So, yes, under the rules, the assistant can be disqualified.

[SCHSref]

The reason why I ask is that someone challenged me on this and said that the HC would be charged with the USC and therefore you can't toss him, but the HC would be charged.  I didn't buy that and when I relayed info about it, I was told that I was wrong and to "read the rules".

[ALStripes17]

The reason why I ask is that someone challenged me on this and said that the HC would be charged with the USC and therefore you can't toss him, but the HC would be charged.  I didn't buy that and when I relayed info about it, I was told that I was wrong and to "read the rules".

And the penalty continues on to say "a disqualified member of the coaching staff shall be removed from the stadium area...."

If an AC couldn't be removed, why does it say coaching staff and not just head coach?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[zoom]

By rule, the trainer, statistician, water boy, ball boy, and any other team personnel can be disqualified.  The confusion with the rule probably has to do with certain fouls that are the responsibility of the head coach, for which he gets charged an USC

- Legal Equipment Worn by players
- Sideline Warning (after the 2nd offense)
- Be on the field following the conclusion of the halftime intermission
- Coin toss infraction
- Be ready to start either half

Also, there is a disqualification charged to the head coach for:
- Contact with a game official by a nonplayer (2nd offense)
though there is no charged USC as it is a personal foul.

Other than these, the offender is personally responsible for his actions.  Any team personnel is subject to receiving an USC foul or being disqualified for reasons listed in 9-5 and 9-8.

[Atlanta Blue]

The reason why I ask is that someone challenged me on this and said that the HC would be charged with the USC and therefore you can't toss him, but the HC would be charged.

You need to hang around a smarter group of officials.

[HLinNC]

This is not basketball, we aren't using bench technicals.

However, I understand your issue as I have heard many old time WH's espouse similar beliefs.  It is frustrating to deal with some older officials who refuse to pay attention or attend meetings and haven't cracked a book in years.

[AlUpstateNY]

It is frustrating to deal with some older officials who refuse to pay attention or attend meetings and haven't cracked a book in years.

Almost as frustrating as dealing with younger officials who think they've already learned everything there is to EVER know.

[Rulesman]

Almost as frustrating as dealing with younger officials who think they've already learned everything there is to EVER know.

Especially those who think targeting is being unfairly targeted. 

[SouthGARef]

The reason why I ask is that someone challenged me on this and said that the HC would be charged with the USC and therefore you can't toss him, but the HC would be charged.  I didn't buy that and when I relayed info about it, I was told that I was wrong and to "read the rules".

You seem to be a smart enough guy to have your own rule book & case book, read it, and dispel this nonsense yourself.

[FBUmp]

In NC, we are enforcing a Zero Tolerance Policy for profanity, inappropriate language and anyone other than the head coach "discussing" calls with the official(s). The sideline is to have ONE voice, the head coach.

This policy includes that an unsportsmanlike conduct foul on anyone in the team box is also charged to the head coach. 2 USC fouls on the sideline and the head coach is ejected and suspended for the next game.

No, that is not the NFHS rule but it is the NCHSAA rule.

[prab]

In NC, we are enforcing a Zero Tolerance Policy for profanity, inappropriate language and anyone other than the head coach "discussing" calls with the official(s). The sideline is to have ONE voice, the head coach.

This policy includes that an unsportsmanlike conduct foul on anyone in the team box is also charged to the head coach. 2 USC fouls on the sideline and the head coach is ejected and suspended for the next game.

No, that is not the NFHS rule but it is the NCHSAA rule.

I like it!!!

[ncwingman]

This policy includes that an unsportsmanlike conduct foul on anyone in the team box is also charged to the head coach. 2 USC fouls on the sideline and the head coach is ejected and suspended for the next game.

No, that is not the NFHS rule but it is the NCHSAA rule.

I like the point of emphasis and certainly not disagreeing, but I think the "charged to the head coach" part is causing a bit of confusion. Like sideline interference, the HC is ultimately responsible for the sideline and this falls under "verbal sideline interference" (kind of). However, as HLinNC pointed out, there is no "bench technical" in the manual that just gets charged to the HC, so there's no explicit rule support for the USC also being charged to the HC -- it's just state interpretation.

Oh, and I'm sure we'll get a bunch of follow up emails once conference play starts and a HC gets tossed because the line judge runs into an assistant in the restricted zone, then said assistant says a few choice words to the official. That's two penalties "charged" the HC, but separately and they don't combine to cause a disqualification.

[FBUmp]

I like the point of emphasis and certainly not disagreeing, but I think the "charged to the head coach" part is causing a bit of confusion. Like sideline interference, the HC is ultimately responsible for the sideline and this falls under "verbal sideline interference" (kind of). However, as HLinNC pointed out, there is no "bench technical" in the manual that just gets charged to the HC, so there's no explicit rule support for the USC also being charged to the HC -- it's just state interpretation.

Oh, and I'm sure we'll get a bunch of follow up emails once conference play starts and a HC gets tossed because the line judge runs into an assistant in the restricted zone, then said assistant says a few choice words to the official. That's two penalties "charged" the HC, but separately and they don't combine to cause a disqualification.

You're confusing two different situations.

Running into an asst coach or anyone else in the restricted area is not a USC. It's a personal foul.  If that happens twice in a game, the head coach would be disqualified. But a PF of this type and a USC, whether charged on an asst coach or directly to the head coach, cannot combine to toss the head coach.

As for the USC on sideline personnel being charged to the head coach, it is NOT an NC interpretation. It is an NCHSAA rule. MD knows that under NFHS rules, such a foul is not charged to the HC. But the NCHSAA Board of Directors have approved this rule. As MD explained it to us, the NFHS has no problem with a state making a rule stricter than the NFHS rule is written.

[HLinNC]

I suggest you run that one by Mark.

[FBUmp]

I suggest you run that one by Mark.

That's the information he gave us when we questioned it the day after our state clinic. We pointed out that the NFHS does not support such a penalty. He told us that this is an NCHSAA rule and that the NFHS has no problem with a state rule being more stiff than the NFHS rule. As such, any bench personnel who contest calls, come onto the field to argue or uses profane or inappropriate language will receive a USC, which is also charged to the head coach. The second time it happens or the head coach gets a USC directly charged to him, he is ejected.

[FLAHL]

Question for the guys in NC. Is your zero tolerance policy changing behavior in terms of language and asst coaches questioning calls?

I wish FL would adopt that policy.

[Atlanta Blue]

That's the information he gave us when we questioned it the day after our state clinic. We pointed out that the NFHS does not support such a penalty. He told us that this is an NCHSAA rule and that the NFHS has no problem with a state rule being more stiff than the NFHS rule. As such, any bench personnel who contest calls, come onto the field to argue or uses profane or inappropriate language will receive a USC, which is also charged to the head coach. The second time it happens or the head coach gets a USC directly charged to him, he is ejected.

This isn't "stiffer" than a FED rule, it's moving responsibility and placing it somewhere not designed by rule.    And even if it was "stiffer", you still can't unilaterally change it.  No state could say, "Instead of 10 yards for a first down, we're going to make it stiffer and make it 15."  I'm going to bet dollars to donuts that the NCHSAA made this rule without getting it approved by the NFHS.

I have recently been involved with some baseball rule changes, and there is no way the NFHS approves a change like this.  That being said, the NCHSAA may say, "Don't care, we're doing it anyway.  If you want to take away our rules seat, take your best shot."

[HLinNC]

In our region, about 9 western counties, there has never been a serious problem in the 15 years I have worked this area.  Individual eruptions by coaches occur occasionally and are dealt with as needed under the existing rules.

As to assistants, any that I  felt were beginning to chirp too much, I've mentioned to the boss and never had a problem with it getting fixed promptly.  Most of us have a decent rapport with the school's we work. 

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, a state has the authority to stiffen a rule but not to weaken it. Example : The NFHS doesn't specify any subsequent suspension for a player/ coach ejection; however, most states suspend the culprit from upcoming game(s). Mark is a sharp guy, and I'm sure he is fully understanding of NFHS regulations when issuing this edict for NC.

[LAZebra]

In our region, about 9 western counties, there has never been a serious problem in the 15 years I have worked this area.  Individual eruptions by coaches occur occasionally and are dealt with as needed under the existing rules.

As to assistants, any that I  felt were beginning to chirp too much, I've mentioned to the boss and never had a problem with it getting fixed promptly.  Most of us have a decent rapport with the school's we work.

In my experience, you seldom even have to tell the HC which assistant is causing a problem.  All you have to do is mention that you would appreciate all communication coming through the HC.  They usually know who you are talking about, often it is the same guy that causes the HC problems all week in practice.

[KDJBBBJ]

My question is if a the assistant gets a second are both he and the head coach tossed? Also if a different assistant get an USC is the head coach gone?  Just wondering.

[zoom]

My question is if a the assistant gets a second are both he and the head coach tossed? Also if a different assistant get an USC is the head coach gone?  Just wondering.

No, the USC on a different team member is not assigned to the head coach at all and does not count towards his disqualification.  If a team has 10 assistants, you could technically give each of them separate USC penalties. They could also be seperately disqualified.  The head coach could still get one and not be disqualified.

[KDJBBBJ]

So what does putting the first one on the head coach do?  He still needs to get two of his own to be ejected. I don't see any help that this would be to keeping the language and arguing by assistants down.  I can tell my #1 assistant to quit questioning calls and tell #2 its his turn and so on.