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

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dad

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.

Yep, that's the scoring team interfering with the throw in. Not at all related to the OP here. The OP does not even remotely fit with the four designated options for DOG.

DOG is not a catch-all to be used anytime a team confuses or annoys the officials. It cannot, by rule, be used for this situation. That's what Smitty meant by "there's no such DOG".

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

Yep, that's the scoring team interfering with the throw in. Not at all related to the OP here. The OP does not even remotely fit with the four designated options for DOG.

DOG is not a catch-all to be used anytime a team confuses or annoys the officials. It cannot, by rule, be used for this situation. That's what Smitty meant by "there's no such DOG".

I'll finish here since we've all stopped reading posts and just cherry-picked what we want to harp on. I never said anything about a DOG warning to the OP. I posted the case book play someone was referring to and I even QUOTED what they said about not giving the confused kid a T. The case book says confused or not it's DOG. Again, NOTHING to do with the OP and I was replying to someone's reference of the play.

Not enforcing coaching box rules is probably going to lead to a rule change I don't want to see. Whether it's not giving us a judgement call anymore or not allowing coaches to call a TO. Neither of which I personally like.

I'm sure someone like you or Rich could pass on this and it'd be okay. But having it a basis of what we can and can't pass on, in my mind, will make NFHS make a rule so officials can't screw it up. This I don't want to see.

[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?

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Hugh Refner

And your point?

My point, if you read my entire post, is that we aren't as strict as that in my area so we would end up giving a T in he first minute of the game if we cared about the coaches taking a step out of their box. We deal with it when the coach complains and is out of his/her box. Or if they are very far out of the box. But we don't mark the box and we certainly don't T up a coach because they are a foot or two out of it and coaching.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by Smitty

My point, if you read my entire post, is that we aren't as strict as that in my area so we would end up giving a T in he first minute of the game if we cared about the coaches taking a step out of their box. We deal with it when the coach complains and is out of his/her box. Or if they are very far out of the box. But we don't mark the box and we certainly don't T up a coach because they are a foot or two out of it and coaching.

Do you mean the school's don't mark the box? Like at all?

[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