Ugly mess of a situation

[Gutierrez7]

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!

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Gutierrez7

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?

No
Yes

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SC Official

No
Yes

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

Agree.

[Nevadaref]

I agree with the first two responders.

[crosscountry55]

Me three.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dad]

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.

[Freddy]

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......

[crosscountry55]

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

[Altor]

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?

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Altor

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.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Altor

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?

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

[Altor]

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Altor

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?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I agree with the first two responders.

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