To T or not to T; that is the question?

[Adam]

I would not fault another official who made the call, and would back his or her play if it was called.

I see this as similar to the coach who comes out onto the court to get our attention to request a TO. By rule, it's a T that could be called. I just don't think it fits the intent of the rule.

Now, if the coach actually interferes in any way with the play I'd call it without hesitation.

[Rich]

If I stop play, I'm giving a technical foul.

Will I stop play in order to assess one? Maybe.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

I would not fault another official who made the call, and would back his or her play if it was called.

I see this as similar to the coach who comes out onto the court to get our attention to request a TO. By rule, it's a T that could be called. I just don't think it fits the intent of the rule.

Now, if the coach actually interferes in any way with the play I'd call it without hesitation.

If a coach comes onto the floor yelling for a TO I don't see it as being similar. It's more than likely we weren't hearing him. I could justify this to just about anyone.

In the OP's case I find it different and borderline unsportsmanlike behavior. What are you going to do when the other coach asks why you didn't give the coach a technical for running half-way onto the court to celebrate a basket?

The rule is the coach is supposed to stay in his box. The intent is to keep the coach from leaving said box. All the players didn't think there was a TO, but the coach did? This is one of those situations, for me, where reasoning doesn't hold much wait, if any.

I'm not saying it's wrong to pass on this, but I'm having a hard time rationalizing it.

[JRutledge]

Even though this is not the same situation. But we had a player in a game earlier in the year basically threw the ball at an official (it was not me). I heard about the situation the first time, I witness the second incident. The official in question never gave a T for the action. The kid was a "problem child" in many ways in this game and we never took care of him (and he gave us chances). Then to make a long story short, the AD of the particular school tried to accuse the official of doing something improper.

The lesson I learned (and the official in question learned) that we have to just apply the rules on these kinds of things and constantly giving a pass for bad behavior. If we had given this kid a T in the game, maybe we did not have deal with the accusations after the game. Oh and the "incident" is on tape too. I just think we find too many ways to ignore something obvious because we do not want to be the "story." But we do that to our own peril in many ways.

Peace

[frezer11]

I tend to agree with Adam. If this is clearly a miscommunication by the coach, I'm going to try to avoid a T (unless, of course, he does interfere with the play). I would also look at the spirit of the rule. I know this isn't a directly applicable analogy, but I liken it to the kid who takes the ball out of bounds after his team scores, but is clearly confused on the play. I'm not giving one there unless I have to, and I'm not giving one here unless I have to.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I tend to agree with Adam. If this is clearly a miscommunication by the coach, I'm going to try to avoid a T (unless, of course, he does interfere with the play). I would also look at the spirit of the rule. I know this isn't a directly applicable analogy, but I liken it to the kid who takes the ball out of bounds after his team scores, but is clearly confused on the play. I'm not giving one there unless I have to, and I'm not giving one here unless I have to.

You're going to have to if it's the second delay-of-game warning. The spirit of the rule is stay in your bloody coaching box. They didn't write the box rule for us to determine when we should and shouldn't enforce it.

There's no inadvertent whistle. No one said TO. No player thinks there is a TO. There's zero confusion for me to give this coach any room to leave the coaching box.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Dad

You're going to have to if it's the second delay-of-game warning. The spirit of the rule is stay in your bloody coaching box. They didn't write the box rule for us to determine when we should and shouldn't enforce it.

There's no inadvertent whistle. No one said TO. No player thinks there is a TO. There's zero confusion for me to give this coach any room to leave the coaching box.

No, that's the *letter* of the rule.

The spiriit could be the same...or not.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Rich

No, that's the *letter* of the rule.

The spiriit could be the same...or not.

Literal and intent go hand in hand here, imo, when they made the rule for coaches staying in the box. Well, at least very similar.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Dad

You're going to have to if it's the second delay-of-game warning. The spirit of the rule is stay in your bloody coaching box. They didn't write the box rule for us to determine when we should and shouldn't enforce it.

There's no inadvertent whistle. No one said TO. No player thinks there is a TO. There's zero confusion for me to give this coach any room to leave the coaching box.

Delay of game warning? There is no such DOG. In my neck of the woods, we are fairly lax with the coaching box. So I get it if you are in a zero tolerance zone. But if we started giving out T's every time the coach steps out of the box, we'd have a lot of games with coaches sitting in their chair for 31 minutes.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Smitty

Delay of game warning? There is no such DOG. In my neck of the woods, we are fairly lax with the coaching box. So I get it if you are in a zero tolerance zone. But if we started giving out T's every time the coach steps out of the box, we'd have a lot of games with coaches sitting in their chair for 31 minutes.

There is such a thing in the example he gave. Here ya go:

Immediately following a goal or free throw by Team A, A1 inbounds the ball to A2 and A2 subsequently throws the ball through A's basket. RULING: The following procedure has been adopted to handle this specific situations if it is recognized before the opponents gain control or before the next throw-in begins: A) Tech B) delay of game warning c/d/e) blah blah blah. Comment: If there is no doubt the throw-in was a result of confusion, the entire procedure would be follow except the tech. If it's the second delay-of-game there is a tech.

[Hugh Refner]

Originally Posted by Smitty

But if we started giving out T's every time the coach steps out of the box, we'd have a lot of games with coaches sitting in their chair for 31 minutes.

And your point?

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by Dad

You're going to have to if it's the second delay-of-game warning. The spirit of the rule is stay in your bloody coaching box. They didn't write the box rule for us to determine when we should and shouldn't enforce it.

There's no inadvertent whistle. No one said TO. No player thinks there is a TO. There's zero confusion for me to give this coach any room to leave the coaching box.

Honestly, how many of us whack every coach we interact with the first time they step out of the coaching box? I think the answer is pretty close to ZERO, so justifying this T as being because he came out of the box is ridiculous.

As written, he brainfarted, and I'm not punishing him unless he interfered with the play somehow.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dad

You're going to have to if it's the second delay-of-game warning. The spirit of the rule is stay in your bloody coaching box. They didn't write the box rule for us to determine when we should and shouldn't enforce it.

There's no inadvertent whistle. No one said TO. No player thinks there is a TO. There's zero confusion for me to give this coach any room to leave the coaching box.

So do you hit him up if he's standing just outside the box?

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

So do you hit him up if he's standing just outside the box? Honestly, around here this isn't much of an issue and I don't pay enough attention to coaches to see if there foot is on the line. If I can tell I make it clear I would really appreciate if they'd stay in the box because I don't want to have to call a stupid technical. I've also never called one, but that's not to say one wasn't called on a game I was on.


No, it says he's acting as if there's a timeout AND mildly celebrating the made basket. He's not out high fiving his shooter, he thought there was a TO.

If the other coach asks, I'll give him the "I'd do the same for you" and add that if he had interfered with play, I would have called it. His confusion over there being a TO doesn't justify anything for me. What confusion? There was none from what I read in the OP. Now if he asked for a TO and my partner said okay and didn't blow his whistle that's different. Here the coach is just being dumb and that's not reason enough for me to pass.

Th

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I tend to agree with Adam. If this is clearly a miscommunication by the coach, I'm going to try to avoid a T (unless, of course, he does interfere with the play). I would also look at the spirit of the rule. I know this isn't a directly applicable analogy, but I liken it to the kid who takes the ball out of bounds after his team scores, but is clearly confused on the play. I'm not giving one there unless I have to, and I'm not giving one here unless I have to.

Originally Posted by Dad

You're going to have to if it's the second delay-of-game warning. The spirit of the rule is stay in your bloody coaching box. They didn't write the box rule for us to determine when we should and shouldn't enforce it.
There's no inadvertent whistle. No one said TO. No player thinks there is a TO. There's zero confusion for me to give this coach any room to leave the coaching box.

That's not you responding to a post by stating a 2nd DOG warning and T is needed for this situation?