Ugly mess of a situation
 

Boys High School Varsity Game

During the 4th qtr., player V1 (Visitor) requested and was granted time out while he dribbled into his frontcourt. Note; during live ball, the Referee while in Trail position at division line opposite table, noticed players H2 and V2 lagging coming up the court.

As the players proceeded to their bench during the dead ball and prior to the Referee reporting the time out, the following transpired:

Player H2 (Home) flagrantly pushed player V2 to the floor; while getting up and before V2 could retaliate, H3 flagrantly pushes V2 to the floor again in front of the scorer’s table.

Both Head Coaches assisted the officials in restraining their players, however, V-Coach verbally accused the officials of causing the players outburst. The Umpire then signaled direct technical foul on V-Coach. No bench players entered the court.

The officials did not witness (see or hear) what was said/done by V2 that preceded the flagrant acts of H2 or H3.

After the officials conferred about the events, the following was administered:
Ejections of players H2 and H3;
V-Coach lost his coaching box privilege and had to remain seated for the duration of the game; all three technical fouls were recorded as team fouls and counted towards each teams bonus.

Now the fun part of putting the ball back in play:
The officials deemed the V-Coach technical offset one of the two H player’s technical; therefore, team V shoots two free throws and gets the ball for a throw in at the division line opposite table.

Were the officials correct?

Should the officials had put the ball back in play the following way:
Administer the fouls in order; Team V shoot four free throws for the two H flagrant technical fouls and then Team H shoot two free throws for the V coach technical and get the ball for a throw in at the division line opposite table?

LET THE COMMENTS BEGIN! :rolleyes:

No
Yes

And varsity officials shouldn't be screwing up this enforcement. This one wasn't that difficult.

Agree.

I agree with the first two responders.

Me three.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Always fun to watch these kind of of plays in the first couple games of the season. Catch all the refs who wished their books weren't shut since the end of last season. :p

Their "ugly mess" is not necessarily equivalent to an "ugly mess" on our part. Unless, by botching a rule, we pile an "ugly mess" of our own upon theirs.
Which, in this case...... :(

So here's a question. What would the penalty administration sequence be under NCAA rules? I believe what you have here are two F2Ts on H2/H3 and then the V coach T (Class A men, bench tech women).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The OP doesn't specify that V-HC was beckoned to the court to help. Since he shot his mouth off, would anybody consider giving him a flagrant T? Or, since H-HC came off the bench too, does V-HC get a reprieve on this?

Head coach is not required to be beckoned. This has been the rule for a few years now.

Either or both HCs can come off the bench to prevent a fight from breaking out or to help keep it from escalating. New rule last year; this is not a factor here at all.

As for shooting his mouth off in such a way that was soooo vulgar as to warrant a flagrant T, that's a judgment call and a "had to be there" kind of thing. It would take a lot for me.

Now of course if a non-flagrant T doesn't correct the observed behavioral issues, there is another way to eject the coach if necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough. So, since he may enter to prevent the escalation of a possible fight and he decided to run his mouth as well, do you run him?

So you're calling flagrant technical on the visiting coach because he shot off his mouth?

You're correct with NCAAW: H2 and H3 receive F2 Technicals and are ejected. The V coach receives a bench technical. The home team receives two team fouls and the visiting team receives one team foul. Anyone on the home team would shoot 2 FTs for the bench technical, then anyone on the visiting team would shoot the 4 FTs for the F2 Techs, then the visiting team would receive the ball at the POI, which would be the spot where the throw-in was supposed to take place after the timeout.

I'm just piling on now, but me too.

I get the logic. If anyone comes off the bench during a fight, it's a flagrant T regardless of what they may say. There is an exception for the HC to come out and assist with breaking up the fight. If the coach does or says anything that might inflame the situation, I could see running him.

If he actually breaks up the fight first, then says something on the way back, maybe not. If he mouths off and then proceeds to break up the fight, there's a decision to be made.

Hawkeyes go 12-0 and now you're full of opinions.

Ejections? On the high school level, why wouldn't we just eject both of H's players or at least H3?
Doubtful we hear anything from V's coach if an official comes up tossing one or both players. Can't say I blame the V coach for taking a "T" in that situation.
My kid just got the Bogart treatment from two players during a dead ball?
:(

Damned straight.

I'm interested in what others may think of a T here. While I'm an advocate of not holding them back, this is a situation where I may just let it go -- depending how/what the coach says.

With how horrible the sportsmanship was from the two ejected players I'd have to imagine something happened before their shoves.

Seems like I would have to have something good to have a T here. If he's just protective over his players and voices he think I missed something previously...

Both players are gone (H2 and H3) without hesitation.

We don't "come up tossing" until the fight is over. We have more important things to do during the scrum, and the coach should know as much. If either H2 or H3 don't get tossed, then the coach has a gripe.

Either way, the coach's seatbelt would be the definition of grace. He's lucky to stick around.

I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but I get tired of people giving excuses to adults because "they're just (insert sports cliche here)." They're adults, and the coach needs to focus on preventing this thing from getting worse. By blaming the refs on his way out, he's doing the exact opposite.

I agree, but why would the coach care about getting tossed after his kid was attacked? Once that minor was attacked a second time... those officials are lucky some over-zealous parent didn't come flying out of the stands. May sound crazy, but if those kids don't get ejected and something bad happens to V2... good luck getting your name off that law suit is you're in that officiating crew.

I'm not following how this thread has transformed from talking about officials screwing up an enforcement to talking about lawsuits. :confused:

On another note, "protecting his players" is one of the lamest, most overused excuses for childish behavior from coaches. We're expected to act like adults, so should the coaches be.

Why are the officials lucky? What lawsuit? Are you taking the V coach at his word that the officials caused H2 and H3 to be stupid? Do you think they could/should have been able to prevent H3's stupidity? I'm picturing him doing it as the whistle is blowing for H2. Both officials likely have their whistles out of the mouths at this point, so the whistle is going to take a second.

I'm don't care if the coach cares, to be honest. My job is to regain control of a situation that's spiraling at this point and the coach is now part of the problem. I've got three problems (H2, H3, and V Coach), I'm inclined to remove all three.

Actually, 1-11 would only be required to meet those parameters.

One clarification: there was no mention of Coach H losing the coaching box, as H-2 and H-3 were apparently still deemed to be players and not bench personnel. At what instant does bench personnel start? At the whistle when the time out is granted? At "Start the clock, please," to the timekeeper? Something else?

Players are still players during a timeout. Only during intermissions do they become bench personnel.

With how horrible the sportsmanship was from the two ejected players I'd have to imagine something happened before their shoves.

Seems like I would have to have something good to have a T here. If he's just protective over his players and voices he think I missed something previously...[/QUOTE]

I agree!

Just to be clear, it wasn't the ejected players' coach that was T'd as your post implied, it was the visiting coach...the one whose player was shoved.

We are discussing two separate issues here - one is a matter of rule, the other a matter of judgement.

The question the OP originally posed was if the penalties for the T's were administered correctly by rule, and I agree with numerous others that they were not.

The second issue that has evolved in the discussion here is with the T on the visiting coach (note that the OP did not question the T on the VC, just how the penalties were administered). This is a matter of severity of conduct as judged by the game officials - it's one of those HTBT situations.....

If the game officials judged the coach's comments as worthy of a T, I have no problem with that. As to whether it was worthy of a flagrant T and ejection, that's another judgement they have to make based on the situation.

Regardless of what might have prompted a coach's unsportsmanlike action, his conduct stands on it's own and you penalize accordingly.

It's easy to be an "arm chair" official with 20/20 hindsight, but in reality only the game officials present have the immediate knowledge to make those judgements.

My post implied the V coach was the one we're talking about. Not sure what you're talking about.

As for the original post, I agree with how the officials dealt with everything up to the administering of the calls.

I'm not debating the initial call, but wondering what people are letting fly here from the VC. Since specifics weren't discussed from the OP, I figured it would've be an interesting topic.

Hit The Showers ...
 

Minor point. With very rare exceptions, high school players are not ejected, they are disqualified. Only adult bench personnel can be ejected in a high school game.

However, here in the Constitution State, when a player is disqualified due to two technical fouls, or a single flagrant foul (technical, or personal) officials have to complete an ejection report. Go figure?

When that form came out they ejected players. :D

forgive me if I read it wrong.........

Rare Exception ...
 

10.5 Situation: ... However, in an unusual situation, an official has the authority to require
that these individuals who have committed a flagrant technical foul must leave the
vicinity of the court. This action is necessary when permitting such offenders to
remain at courtside would tend to incite the crowd, to incite the opponents, or to
subject the officials, opponents or others administering the game, to unsporting
harassment. In such circumstances, the official should require the individual who
has committed a flagrant foul to leave the vicinity of the court with an adult supervisor.
It must be emphasized that an official does have this authority, when the
circumstances resulting from any flagrant foul warrant it.

You're forgiven.

If a coach come of the bench in a situations where a fight has or may break out, he can do that. If he uses that opportunity to do anything else, he gets very little lee-way. He does not get to use the chaos of that situation to yell at me or an opponent.

Everyone did decent with their jobs in this situation:
Officials disqualified players and gave a deserving T to the coach; and the coach - possible surrogate father - for the kid should be ejected when his kid was attacked by two opposing players. No one has to take anything personal...

Who's taking something personal?

My thought is this:
The penalty for leaving the bench during a fight is a flagrant T; except for a head coach who is helping to stop the fight. Telling the officials how he thinks the actions were their fault is the exact opposite of stopping a fight.

Whether I give him a flagrant likely has more to do with whether he stops the fight before or after his verbal assault.

In the OP the coach did break up the fracas.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Yeah, I saw that, which is why I'd probably just go with what the crew did in this game (other than enforcement), depending on exactly how he said it and when he said it. If he barks on his way to break up the fight, it might be a different answer even if he breaks it up.

No need to answer original question, everyone already did, but this^^^^ is what I want to know. Something had to happen to instigate those acts, would it not?

It could be some off the court mess. Could have been something from a previous game. Could be over a girl.


Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

This./\

V's coach was mad. I doubt he was mad that the refs didn't hear what, if anything, his kid said to instigate it.

There's a good chance they could have seen something if they were watching for it, and film review may help them in the future. There's also a good chance this came out of nowhere. It happens.

Either way, V coach doesn't get to use his pass onto the court to accuse the officials of negligence.