Rule and Enforcement

[neil99]

With the score of 45-0 and running clock under one minute to play the team with the lead intercepts the losing teams pass and runs it down to A's 15 yard line. During the play the HL collides with a bench player on the sideline and is knocked to the ground. (He has already given a side line warning in the first half) He throws his flag for sideline interference. The Referee gives the signal 7-29-27 and gives a Unsportsmanlike penalty to the Head Coach for the sideline interference. Based on 9-8-1k, 3 (as designated for Sideline Interference on page 94 of the rules book.)

 This is when all hell breaks lose..... The Head Coach as well as the assistant coaches proceed to use profanity, vulgar language, and disrespect the HL for the call and calls he has made all night. (this is the team that's up 45-0) The HL has had enough and throws a Unsportsmanlike penalty on the Head Coach. This is now his 2nd USL penalty and is ejected from the game with 47.7s left on the clock.

If you look at page 70 rule 9-5-8  "Unintentional contact between a non player and a game official in the restricted area while the ball is live" is listed as Illegal Personal Contact and should be signaled 38-29 and not a USL.

Both 9-8-3 and 9-5-3 seem to contradict each other.... Should the coach have been ejected and what would the proper enforcement be?

[indiotom]

9-4-8  unintentional contact in restricted zone: you are right, the book says S38-29, personal foul. So, even though a second violation results in head coach ejection, does this count as the head coach's first U.S.?

[mbyron]

It's 9-4-8, but you are correct, this contact should have been ruled a PF and not USC.

However, once a USC penalty is assessed to the HC, rightly or wrongly, it counts. When he gets the second one (and it sounds as if he might have earned a few more than that), he goes.

[GAHSUMPIRE]

The second USC just means the ejection is automatic. I may be wrong, but if the conduct is flagrant enough, you would be within the rules to eject him on the first. The way it sounds, you could have had a USC for the Assistant's language that is charged to the Head Coach, and one of his own, so I think you'd be safe either way.

[HLinNC]

you could have had a USC for the Assistant's language that is charged to the Head Coach

I don't believe that is correct.    The foul goes to the non-player that earned it.

[AlUpstateNY]

The penalty procedures under NF: 9-4 regarding 9-4-8 advise, "Unintentional contact with a game official in the restricted area. Nonplayer foul (art 8)-(s38-29).  For the first offense, 15 yards from the succeeding spot.  For the second offense (s38-29-47) -15 yards from the succeeding spot AND DISQUALIFICATION OF THE HEAD COACH.".

As stated above a second USC penalty charged to any coach requires disqualification, but any single USC foul that is deemed "flagrant" can produce disqualification.

[Atlanta Blue]

Unintentionally colliding with an official in the restricked area does NOT get combined with another USC foul for disqualification.

Doing it twice gets you tossed.  Two USC calls on a coach get him tossed.  One of each does not.

[bama_stripes]

Unintentionally colliding with an official in the restricked area does NOT get combined with another USC foul for disqualification.

Doing it twice gets you tossed.  Two USC calls on a coach get him tossed.  One of each does not.

Quite right.  It's actually a Personal Foul with special enforcement.

[hoochycoochy]

Unintentionally colliding with an official in the restricked area does NOT get combined with another USC foul for disqualification.

Doing it twice gets you tossed.  Two USC calls on a coach get him tossed.  One of each does not.

Bingo!

[TampaSteve]

perhaps the actions by the HC may have been flagrant & yall went straight to USC ejection??

[mbyron]

Quite right.  It's actually a Personal Foul with special enforcement.

Are you talking about a non-player collision with an official or a coach collision with an official?

[bama_stripes]

Are you talking about a non-player collision with an official or a coach collision with an official?

Yes.

[jjseikel]

Are you talking about a non-player collision with an official or a coach collision with an official?

A coach is a non-player.

[losthog]

I've learned a lot about my sideline management this week.   

[FBUmp]

The way it sounds, you could have had a USC for the Assistant's language that is charged to the Head Coach, and one of his own, so I think you'd be safe either way.

Where has this myth evolved from?  I've read several posts on different forums this year that perpetuated this month.

A USC foul on a non-player on the sideline is NOT also charged to the head coach.

This ain't basketball, folks.

[GAHSUMPIRE]

My apologies. I was under the impression that USC's on the bench are assigned to the head coach. If I was in error, I am glad that it was on this forum and not on the field.

[blandis]

You can always call the USC flagrant and dump the idiot anyhow.

[FBUmp]

My apologies. I was under the impression that USC's on the bench are assigned to the head coach. If I was in error, I am glad that it was on this forum and not on the field.

No worries, GAHSU.  It's something I've read on several forums all season. That's why I took your name out of the quote.  Just wanted to clarify. 

Now you own it!