[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Historically, unsportsmanlike technical fouls have been interpreted to mean actions directed either toward an opponent or an official.

Since the AAU game that I wrote about was played using NFHS rules, lets look at the NFHS Rules concerning flagrant fouls and technical fouls by bench personnel, keeping in the historic interpretation of unsportsmanlike technical fouls.

R4-S19-A4: A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persisten, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

R10-S4: Bench personnel shall not:

A1: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is
not limited to, acts or conduct such as:

a. Disrespectfully addressing an official.

b. Attempting to influence an official's decision.

c. Using profane or inappropriate language or obscene
gestures.

d. Disprepectfully addressing, baiting or taunting an
opponent.
NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of an form of taunting
which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule
or demean others under any circumstances including on
the basis of race, religion, gender or national
origin.

e. Objecting to an official's decision by rising from
the bench or using gestures.

f. Inciting undesirable crowd reactions.

g. Team member(s) not remaining seated on the bench
unless spontaneously reacting to an outstanding play
by a member of their team and immediately returning
to their seats or reporting to the scorer's table.

h. Being charged with fighting.

A2: Enter the court unless by permission of an official to
attend an injured player.

A3: Use tobacco, or smokeless tobacco.

A4: Leave the confines of the bench during a fight.
NOTE: The head coach may enter the court only if
beckoned by an official.

A5: The head coach is responsible for the conduct and
behavior of substitutes, disqualified team members and
all other bench personnel.

What parts for Rules 4 and 10 above might be applied to the father's actions in my AAU game?

Rule 4:
1) Technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable
behavior.

Was the father's behavior unacceptable? YES. Was it
directed toward an opponent or an official? NO. It
would be difficult for an official to charge a techni-
cal foul relying on this section of the rules.

2) Technical noncontact foul which is abusive conduct.

Was the father's conduct abusive? YES. Was an oppo-
nent the recipient of the abusive conduct? NO. It
would be difficult for an official to charge a techni-
cal foul relying on this section of the rules.

Rule 10:
1) Inciting undesirable crowd reactions.

Did the father's behavior cause undesirable crowd
reactions? To be honest, we really did not pay atten-
to the crowd's reaction to what the father did and I
seriously doubt the crowd was paying attention to what
was happening at the bench area. So my answer to this
question would have to be: NO. Could the father's
behavior be interpreted as actions that were designed
undesirable crowd reactions? NO.
that were designed

2) The head coach is responsible for the conduct and
behavior of all other bench personnel.

Was the head coach responsible for the father's conduct
with his son? YES. But remember, if the official
decides to charge the father with a technical foul,
based upon any of the YES answers above, that official
had better be prepared to charge the head coach with an
indirect technical foul. That indirect technical foul
on the head coach, while mandatory because a member of
the bench personnel has just been charged with a tech-
nical foul will be very difficult to explain to the
head coach.

The assistant coach/father's conduct with his son is not the type of behavior that any of us want to see or would condone. But it is just not the type of behavior that an official can easily explain by rule. Remember: If you can't explain it don't call it. This is one of those situations that invoking the Elastic Power is the cleanest way to handle a messy situation. The penalties for a technical foul are very severe and to award an opponent free throws and the ball for such conduct is stretching to the limit the definition of a technical foul.

When an official has an unruly fan removed from the site, do we charge his team with a technical foul? Of course not. This is a similar situation. The father's actions were not directed toward an opponent, and no matter how ugly his actions were, the best course of action (and good game management as far as I am concerned, dang I just broke my arm patting myself on the back) was to have the father removed from the site.

The father did ask how we could have him removed from the game without being charged with a technical foul, we told him what I tell my boys when they want to do something and I say no and they want a reason: Because I said so. That may be a flip definition of the Elastic Clause. But it is an accurate description of the power of the Elastic Clause.

I can assure you that if we had charged the father with a flagrant technical foul, we would have also had to charge the head coach with at least one direct technical foul, meaning at least four free throws.

I think that everyone will agree that the situation I described in our AAU game is a one in a million situation. When faced with such a situation (when the rules are very murky), and the official is considering using the Elastic Clause, he needs to ask himself the following quesiton: Will my decision be good for this game? If the answer is yes, then do it. If the answer is no, then do not do it.

Good night all. And to all a good night.