THE OL' SCREWGIE

[MarkDallas]

Nm

 

[MarkDallas]

If your staff member has to hold you back it's an automatic technical??

Where do they come up with these rules?

 

[skydawg1]

If your staff member has to hold you back it's an automatic technical??

Where do they come up with these rules?

You really think that's a rule?

 

[MaroonOldCrow]

"If the head coach displays an unsporting conduct per Rule 10-4.1 and an assistant coach steps in to hold back a head coach to calm him/her down, the behavior of the head coach is still unsporting and therefore a technical foul will be assessed to the head coach."


LINK

 

[thekimmer]

That has got to be the stupidest thing I've read in a long time....

"If the head coach displays an unsporting conduct per Rule 10-4.1 and an assistant coach steps in to hold back a head coach to calm him/her down, the behavior of the head coach is still unsporting and therefore a technical foul will be assessed to the head coach."


LINK

A coach goes off on a ref without a technical but then the mere act of someone attempting to calm this person down is now a technical foul. Seemingly reasonable, responsible, intelligent people thought this was a good idea? Really????

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

That's not what that says.

It starts with the fact that the head coach has displayed unsporting conduct according to the rules. What that's saying is that the mere fact that an assistant steps in to calm down the head coach doesn't negate the fact that the head coach already broke the rule. The technical foul is assessed to the head coach because his conduct is "still" unsporting.

Now, the commentators on the broadcast last night said it was automatically a technical foul if your assistant has to hold you back. That is not what that document says. If referees are interpreting it that way, then it needs to be clarified further.

 

[MaroonOldCrow]

The problem is the inconsistency: this does not apply on the men's side.

 

[thekimmer]

If that is what it is meant to convey then....

That's not what that says.

It starts with the fact that the head coach has displayed unsporting conduct according to the rules. What that's saying is that the mere fact that an assistant steps in to calm down the head coach doesn't negate the fact that the head coach already broke the rule. The technical foul is assessed to the head coach because his conduct is "still" unsporting.

Now, the commentators on the broadcast last night said it was automatically a technical foul if your assistant has to hold you back. That is not what that document says. If referees are interpreting it that way, then it needs to be clarified further.

Its worded as if a middle schooler wrote it and its still stupid.

 

[patdog]

What that's saying is that the mere fact that an assistant steps in to calm down the head coach doesn't negate the fact that the head coach already broke the rule.

Why would there be any need for a special rule to say that? Has any referee in the history of basketball ever said, "He should get a T for that, but oh look, his assistant is trying to restrain him so I guess I'll give him a break and not call it." Whatever they meant to say with that rule, it's very poorly worded and just not a good rule.

 

[RocketDawg]

I wonder why the assistant tries to restrain the HC if it's basically an automatic Technical.