Player or team member?

[ronny mulkey]

Question 1: Dribbler A1 becomes frustrated at an official and throws the ball intentionally and hits an official. Do you merely tech the player or eject the player?

Question 2: Immediately after the final horn to end the game, player A1 throws the ball intentionally and hits an official. Is A1 now a player or a team member?

Actual Situation: Earlier during a game the head coach is assessed a tech. Later in the game, his assistant is assessed a tech. Immediately after the game, A1 throws the ball intentionally and hits the official. Is this tech also an indirect on the coach? i.e. is A1 now a player or a team member?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Question 1: Dribbler A1 becomes frustrated at an official and throws the ball intentionally and hits an official. Do you merely tech the player or eject the player?

Question 2: Immediately after the final horn to end the game, player A1 throws the ball intentionally and hits an official. Is A1 now a player or a team member?

Actual Situation: Earlier during a game the head coach is assessed a tech. Later in the game, his assistant is assessed a tech. Immediately after the game, A1 throws the ball intentionally and hits the official. Is this tech also an indirect on the coach? i.e. is A1 now a player or a team member?

1. Flagrant technical foul. This act is completely unacceptable.
2. He is a team member after the quarter has ended. The definition of a player is no longer met.
3. Yes, the head coach is charged with an indirect technical and disqualified.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

1. Flagrant technical foul. This act is completely unacceptable.
2. He is a team member after the quarter has ended. The definition of a player is no longer met.
3. Yes, the head coach is charged with an indirect technical and disqualified.

Nevada,

Not disagreeing with you. But for clarification, the reason "definition of a player is no longer met" is the part about the intermission?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

Nevada,

Not disagreeing with you. But for clarification, the reason "definition of a player is no longer met" is the part about the intermission?

See case 4.34.2

And, it only matters (to the officials) if there is to be an OT. (It might make some difference in how the State handles it.)

[Dad]

Hope you gave A1 a flagrant and a nice write-up.

[ronny mulkey]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

See case 4.34.2

And, it only matters (to the officials) if there is to be an OT. (It might make some difference in how the State handles it.)

Yes. In our state, the ejection carries an additional 2 games penalty.

A couple years ago in my 2nd season refereeing I was doing a JV game and threw out a kid for throwing the ball at me. Here's the clip: https://streamable.com/vsz6

Note: I did not call a flagrant tech -- the kid had been whacked earlier in the game as part of a double tech so he was gone anyway.