9-2-5.b Rule Change

[zebrastripes]

In the Ohio State @ Washington game this past weekend, in the 1Q the Washington head coach was contacted in the white by a wing official. A flag was thrown and the foul was announced as sideline interference. Subsequently, the coach objected and was assessed an unsportsmanlike conduct foul.

It looks like, based on the new wording in 9-2-5.b, the first foul also should have been UNS rather than SLM, charged directly to the head coach since he could be readily identified. This would mean that the second foul would have, by rule, been his second UNS and he’d be ejected from the game. (I can only imagine the media’s reaction if this sequence resulted in the coach’s ejection.)

Is my understanding correct?

[ElvisLives]

In the Ohio State @ Washington game this past weekend, in the 1Q the Washington head coach was contacted in the white by a wing official. A flag was thrown and the foul was announced as sideline interference. Subsequently, the coach objected and was assessed an unsportsmanlike conduct foul.

It looks like, based on the new wording in 9-2-5.b, the first foul also should have been UNS rather than SLM, charged directly to the head coach since he could be readily identified. This would mean that the second foul would have, by rule, been his second UNS and he’d be ejected from the game. (I can only imagine the media’s reaction if this sequence resulted in the coach’s ejection.)

Is my understanding correct?

It depends on how the first foul was classified. If it was treated solely as sideline interference, and was just going to be a warning, then the second action would have been only his first UNS. But, if there was contact, it certainly could have - SHOULD have - been classified as the UNS foul, and tagged to him. Then, when he ‘objected,’ the second UNS would have resulted in an ejection. But, the post-game scrutiny the crew would have been subjected to, beginning with their coordinator all the way up the line to the commissioner, would have been brutal, and nobody would want to go through that. Bad enough to defend the sideline interference, and then the UNS, but a HC ejection would be horrendous. Phone calls. Paperwork. Public and private questioning of judgment and character.
Hard to blame them.

[zebrastripes]

It depends on how the first foul was classified. If it was treated solely as sideline interference, and was just going to be a warning, then the second action would have been only his first UNS. But, if there was contact, it certainly could have - SHOULD have - been classified as the UNS foul, and tagged to him. Then, when he ‘objected,’ the second UNS would have resulted in an ejection. But, the post-game scrutiny the crew would have been subjected to, beginning with their coordinator all the way up the line to the commissioner, would have been brutal, and nobody would want to go through that. Bad enough to defend the sideline interference, and then the UNS, but a HC ejection would be horrendous. Phone calls. Paperwork. Public and private questioning of judgment and character.
Hard to blame them.

The first foul was definitely not a warning, it was announced as “sideline interference” with a 15-yard penalty – totally justifiable (and correct) to skip the warning since there was clearly contact in the restricted area where the coach wasn’t supposed to be. Unfortunately, the CBS crew (namely Gary Danielson) blasted the crew for skipping the warning even though they were correct to do so, and Steratore (who doesn’t appear to know NCAA rules very well) didn’t do much to push back.

I’m totally with you that ejecting the coach on this sequence would have been really bad for the crew after the game, even if correct by rule. So while they may have technically screwed up by not assessing a UNS to the head coach on the first foul, I think this needs to be looked at by the brilliant rules committee (made up of coaches who, you would think, would be HACKED to get ejected on a sequence like this).

[peterparsons]

Is there a video of the sideline interference (and its announcement) online anywhere? I've seen a video of the unsportsmanlike conduct and R doesn't put a counter on the coach during the announcement.

[blindtxzebra]

The sideline interference was not the HC, it was an assistant that was ran into.

[peterparsons]

Thank you. That clears it up.

1 counter on the assistant, then 1 on the HC for coming onto the field to complain about it.

[ElvisLives]

The sideline interference was not the HC, it was an assistant that was ran into.

Well, that IS a horse of a different color. UNS fouls on each, and neither gets two, so nobody has to take a shower.

[zebrastripes]

The sideline interference was not the HC, it was an assistant that was ran into.

Oh wow thanks for clearing that up, I swore it was Fisch who was in the white.