[BillyMac]

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

https://storage.googleapis.com/refqu...K1X%2F9w%3D%3D

IAABO Play Commentary: Correct Answer: The coach should have been assessed a technical foul.

This narrative in no way should be viewed as passing judgment on these fine officials seen in this clip. We have the luxury of focusing only on the actions and behavior of the head coach. When the game is in progress, the officials may not be aware of all of the activity occurring in the bench area.

Let's review the actions/behaviors of the head coach in the scenario presented in this play.
1) He is standing outside of the coaching box. (Violating 10-6-1)
2) He reacts to a ruling by using gestures with his arms. (Violating 10-5-1e)
3) He slaps the scorer's table with his hand. (Violating 10-5-1)
4) He directs a comment toward the official. "Call the foul!" (Violating 10-5-1a)

The items above are all infractions that may lead to a warning to a head coach for misconduct. However, based on the fact that there are multiple infractions of the bench decorum rules on the same play, there is more than enough rules support to consider his actions as "major" and assess an unsporting technical foul in this situation. (10-5-1, 10-6-1)

For 12% of respondents, the correct ruling in this play would be to dismiss the head coach's actions and behaviors and allow play to continue. However, there is no rules support to ignore the head coach on this play.

When a head coach is outside the coaching box, officials are required by rule to address the issue. When the first violation of Rule 10-6-1 occurs, the official must warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul must be assessed. (4-48-2)

Even If the officials deem his actions as "minor," at the very least, a warning would need to be issued. Furthermore, the fact that a participant (player, coach or other bench personnel) spontaneously reacts to a situation has no bearing on the legality of the behavior or action. All involved are required by rule to conduct themselves in a sportsmanlike manner throughout the contest.

Another essential aspect of this play is understanding that the opponents are advancing the ball and actively seeking to score while this unsporting behavior is occurring. In this case, officials are asked to withhold their whistle and assess a penalty after the play is completed. (Case Book 10.5.1 Situation F) In this play, when the ball entered the basket and became dead, the technical foul penalty should be assessed at that time. Again, if the actions were deemed "minor," this would also be when the behavior warning should be issued.

After the score, the "new" Lead official moves into the frontcourt near the bench area, takes the whistle out of her mouth to talk to the coach. Officials should not take the whistle out of their mouth to talk to a coach during a live ball with the clock running. Verbal communication should be during dead ball periods. Officials should not allow a coach to affect their ability to focus on the court. (IAABO Manual p. 104 1.a)

After the score, the new Trail official is essentially left alone to deal with a full-court pressing situation while the new Lead is talking with the coach. This is an excellent example of how talking to coaches during a live ball can negatively impact the officials.

The bench decorum and behavior warnings rules are essential for all officials to master. Officials should know exactly what aspects of rule 10-5-1 and 10-6-1 may be warned and what aspects must be assessed as a technical foul.

Here is the breakdown of the IAABO members that commented on the video: The coach should have been assessed a warning 47% (including me). The coach should have been assessed a technical foul 41%. This is a spontaneous reaction and does not need to be addressed 12%.