College coach on the sideline

I think this is a non-issue, there's not much a guy can do to change a game just by being on the sideline. The concrete is pretty much dry by kickoff, its not like you can install scheme or teach technique during a time out.

"He's helping out. It's not that he's calling any plays whatsoever. It's a situation, 'Hey, you need to kick a field goal.' Something like that." This is the gist of it. Oh, you think I should kick here on 4th-7? Gee, thanks coach. Not much different than the parent who grabs me on the way to halftime to tell me we need to tackle better.

That is pretty lame if you ask me. Who cares.

He's been there a couple of times this year," the Brookville coach said. "He's volunteering. He's helping out. It's not that he's calling any plays whatsoever. It's a situation, 'Hey, you need to kick a field goal.' Something like that...
IMO if he is advising on situations, he is coaching...if he is coaching he is cheating.We played in a playoff game a few years back and the other team had an extra coach from an opposing team up in there both looking at defenses etc..we knew of that and siad something before the game

Not a big deal...but as coaches, we don't get to decide which rules we follow...I personally thinkthe horse collar rule is stupid...we got called for it a couple of times this year..kid does the same thing a year ago its ok....why can't we use electronic devices? Hey coach Petinne wouldn't even have to go the the games..just give him a live feed and a cell phone lol

I found this comment interesting:

"He's interpreting the rule differently than the way I would interpret the rule," the Cave Spring AD said. "He is the director in charge of rules and regulations, so he should know the rules."

I don't know how to take that - is that last part "he should know the rules" saying that he doesn't know them? As in there's no excuse for him not to? Or is it a literal comment that he's in charge, he should know the rules, so that's what the rule must be even if I had a different interpretation.

The interpretation from the state association is that "ineligible" means someone like a coach kicked out or suspended, in other words a person who was previously ruled ineligible, as opposed to someone like a visitor on the sideline. To me, that's a reasonable interpretation, it very well could have been the intent of the rule, and certainly can be read that way.

I think the next pertinent question would be whether the rules specify who is eligible to coach on the sideline. If there is no such specific language saying that only X and Y are "eligible" to coach during a game, then that adds even more validity to the state's ruling of no foul. Without a definition of eligible, then ineligible can only be defined as someone who was affirmatively declared ineligible.

I only think it would be a conflict of interest on the college's end...WTH

I don't think that's a VHSL rule, though.

This guy is a D.3 coach. They don't have the same recruiting restrictions.