Author Topic: Sideline Activity  (Read 1768 times)

Offline NCVAReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-1
Sideline Activity
« on: August 02, 2017, 08:11:34 PM »
A 1/10@ a-20.  During the play the LJ runs into A's head coach in the restricted area.  Later in the game A's head coach uses profanity and the LJ flags it.  What is outcome for A head coach?

Offline SCHSref

  • *
  • Posts: 273
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-9
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
Re: Sideline Activity
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2017, 08:48:08 PM »
A 1/10@ a-20.  During the play the LJ runs into A's head coach in the restricted area.  Later in the game A's head coach uses profanity and the LJ flags it.  What is outcome for A head coach?

He is still in the game.  If i am not mistaken, those usc's can't be rolled together.  Reverse course...he curses you first ans then you have unintentional contact for the second USC.  Or...you run into an assistant coach in the restricted area and then the head coach curses at you 2 quarters later.
If you didn't see it, you can't call it

Offline VA Official

  • *
  • Posts: 197
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Sideline Activity
« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2017, 12:50:08 AM »
A 1/10@ a-20.  During the play the LJ runs into A's head coach in the restricted area.  Later in the game A's head coach uses profanity and the LJ flags it.  What is outcome for A head coach?

He is still in the game.  If i am not mistaken, those usc's can't be rolled together.  Reverse course...he curses you first ans then you have unintentional contact for the second USC.  Or...you run into an assistant coach in the restricted area and then the head coach curses at you 2 quarters later.

Unintentional contact between a nonplayer and game official in the restricted area while the ball is live is a personal foul (9-4-8). A second occurrence of this action by the same team results in the disqualification of the head coach, regardless of which coach/nonplayer commits either foul. SC is right that these fouls in the OP can't be combined, but it's because the first one is a personal foul for sideline interference, not an USC.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 12:53:21 AM by VA Official »

Offline SCHSref

  • *
  • Posts: 273
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-9
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
Re: Sideline Activity
« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2017, 07:35:45 AM »
Correct.   I think it is still a warning though simce it is the first offense
If you didn't see it, you can't call it

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 750
  • FAN REACTION: +44/-9
Re: Sideline Activity
« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2017, 09:22:51 AM »
Correct.   I think it is still a warning though simce it is the first offense

Warning is for a coach who is in the restricted area when the ball is live.
Contact does not require a warning.   ^flag

Offline VA Official

  • *
  • Posts: 197
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Sideline Activity
« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2017, 09:25:33 AM »
Correct.   I think it is still a warning though simce it is the first offense

It's not a warning by rule, but a good official will warn (or at least talk to) the team after both the PF sideline interference and the UNS and explain that one more and the HC is gone. The only time you have a warning is for nonplayers in the restricted area during a live ball. The sideline protocol (1st offense: Warning, 2nd offense: 5 yards, 3rd offense: UNS on the nonplayer) is skipped when contact is made. 9-4-8 covers illegal personal contact (PF), 9-8-1k covers noncontact UNS by nonplayers.

Edit: FLAHL beat me to it.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 09:39:42 AM by VA Official »

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +332/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Sideline Activity
« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2017, 10:25:28 AM »
It's not a warning by rule, but a good official will warn (or at least talk to) the team after both the PF sideline interference and the UNS and explain that one more and the HC is gone. The only time you have a warning is for nonplayers in the restricted area during a live ball. The sideline protocol (1st offense: Warning, 2nd offense: 5 yards, 3rd offense: UNS on the nonplayer) is skipped when contact is made. 9-4-8 covers illegal personal contact (PF), 9-8-1k covers noncontact UNS by nonplayers.

Edit: FLAHL beat me to it.
Coaches know the sideline protocol. Warning them that "one more and the HC is gone" is asking for trouble and a short career.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline VA Official

  • *
  • Posts: 197
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Sideline Activity
« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2017, 10:41:46 AM »
Coaches know the sideline protocol. Warning them that "one more and the HC is gone" is asking for trouble and a short career.

Agreed that that's not the wording anyone should use directly and hopefully most officials know that. But, a reminder to someone on the coaching staff can be considered a form of preventative officiating. No one needs to remind coaches about the sideline protocol (warning, 5, 15), but I know of a few associations that have procedures whenever an UNS or PF SI is called to inform the head coach or designee directly of the foul and what the penalty entails. Every coach knows a 2nd UNS is a DQ, but I've come across many that didn't know a 2nd PF SI is a DQ on the HC regardless of which nonplayer commits the foul. A simple reminder in the right words can prevent a 2nd occurrence. Marking off 15 should do that already, but I've seen that not correct the issue before. There's a way to go about it in being preventative, but I can see how some may feel it's asking for trouble.

Offline bama_stripes

  • *
  • Posts: 2287
  • FAN REACTION: +70/-25
Re: Sideline Activity
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2017, 05:55:28 AM »
 :thumbup

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2219
  • FAN REACTION: +81/-12
Re: Sideline Activity
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2017, 09:39:05 AM »
He is still in the game.  If i am not mistaken, those usc's can't be rolled together.  Reverse course...he curses you first ans then you have unintentional contact for the second USC.  Or...you run into an assistant coach in the restricted area and then the head coach curses at you 2 quarters later.

As a technical point, the foul for "unintentional contact by a nonplayer on a game official while the ball is live" is listed under 9-4 "Illegal personal contact", not under USC.  Remember, USC, even for sideline issues, are NONcontact fouls.

Offline SCHSref

  • *
  • Posts: 273
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-9
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
Re: Sideline Activity
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2017, 12:50:05 PM »
As a technical point, the foul for "unintentional contact by a nonplayer on a game official while the ball is live" is listed under 9-4 "Illegal personal contact", not under USC.  Remember, USC, even for sideline issues, are NONcontact fouls.

Yet, if there was a second occurrence of the exact same incident, the head coach would be disqualified according to the Case Book. 
If you didn't see it, you can't call it

Offline VA Official

  • *
  • Posts: 197
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Sideline Activity
« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2017, 07:42:23 AM »
Yet, if there was a second occurrence of the exact same incident, the head coach would be disqualified according to the Case Book.

The case book is right but it's still a personal foul. It's listed under the 9-4-8 penalty in the rules book. 9-4 covers contact fouls (PF), 9-5 covers noncontact UNS as VALJ said.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2219
  • FAN REACTION: +81/-12
Re: Sideline Activity
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2017, 08:30:04 AM »
Yet, if there was a second occurrence of the exact same incident, the head coach would be disqualified according to the Case Book.

Absolutely.  My point was that, in my view, you can't combine a PF for unintentional contact with a "garden variety" USC and have the coach DQ himself from the game for it, just like a PF and a USC won't result in a player DQing himself.