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

Scenario: ;)
- Varsity Boys
- Team A is the visiting team
- First half
- Score tied

Team A scores a basket and proceeds to run back and play normal defense in their backcourt. Player B1 has legally received the ball in bounds and proceeds to dribble casually up the court in his backcourt (near the foul line). The New Trail official is located just in front of the end line (table side) and administering the 10 second count as Team B is bringing up the ball.

During such time, Coach A, acting as if there was a time out (NO time out was called or granted), runs onto the court and stops around the top of the key (elbow, table side) and demonstrates mild excitement from the made basket. The New Lead official is approaching/approached the end line (opposite table) and witnesses Coach A’s actions. Coach A realizes NO time out was called and immediately leaves the court, in an embarrassed behavior. The New Trail official also witnesses Coach A’s actions.

Question:
Do you give a technical foul to Coach A? :confused:

If you answer YES; what possible reasons/rules would you site; which official(s) should signal for the foul, Lead, Trail or Both?
Side note: what if the New Lead does not signal? Does that change your answer?

If you answer NO; what possible reasons/rules would you site? I.e. didn’t get a good look, to far away to make the call, coach didn’t touch any players, etc…

Your professional input is appreciated as always.

No, I probably wouldn't unless he interfered with play in some way.

He obviously broke the rule, but tucked tail and ran when he realized it.

citation? Spirit and intent.

Are you sure he thought there was a TO? If so, why did he think so?

I'm not seeing passing on a T for a coach running out into the middle of the floor to show excitement over a made basket. Few feet out of his box? Sure, probably. All the way to the key? Not with the information I have so far.

Varsity coach making this kind of mistake seems like incompetence. If he claimed he thought there was a TO I'd be more inclined to give him a T just for a terrible excuse. At least bend down and pretend like you're picking up something for the 'safety of the players.':D

Rule: There is a coaching box for a reason.

I tend to agree with the coaching box violation T. Passing on this, to me, comes off similar to those who don't enforce the uniform rules. What are you going to do late in the game when the other coach does the same thing but says he thought there was a timeout? It's a lot easier to explain a situation to an assignor when a rule backs your decision (i.e. "I gave a T because he was outside the coach's box," as opposed to "I didn't think he was lying to me.") That's not to say that I think any less on those who are inclined to pass as I can see both sides, just giving my reasoning. Just my $.02.

I think you give a T if you had to stop play to address his situation.

We officiate mistakes and if he overreacted to something that was not given, that is really not our problem. And here is the worst part, this is likely on video and you have decide to ignore an obvious violation of the rules. Someone will have a case to complain you did not apply an obvious violation. Now if he did not interfere, that is another story all together. I would try my best not to give one, but he sounds like he gave the officials little choice.

Peace

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

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

No doubt.

http://www.ducksters.com/sports/bask...nical_foul.jpg

Can we give him a delay of game and move on if it was an innocent mistake?
Sounds a little goofy to be intentional... But if he's really goofy, maybe he should be forced to sit the rest of the game?
I can live with the "T" call, D.O.G. Call or a no-call.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree 100%!

MTD, Sr.

No. This is not one of four cases where a DOG warning should be issued.

It's either a T or nothing.

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.

That's actually the one thing you cannot do.

I read the OP as the coach thinking it was a TO and only celebrating or "clapping his team" into a timeout huddle...
I didn't view it as "celebrating". If he was just stoic - would that change things?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

For me? Mayyyyyyyyyyyyybe. However, the OP said the excitement was over the made basket.

The OP as written, I'd be most likely to play on and not issue a T. No press, so the coach did not disrupt play. He had a brain fart and wasn't being argumentative. If the other coach said anything I'd tell him I would have done the same thing for him. I do not think this situation, as written, is T-worthy.

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.

I don't think this scenario is very similar, and I realize you said that right off the bat, but the kid was deliberately doing something wrong in yours, and absolutely needed to get a T (And depending on how hard he threw the ball, he might even be leaving the game for good) whereas in the OP, it was clearly a mistake out of confusion.

Exactly!
To the opposing coach: if I even thought this was intentional I would have whacked him.
We got a great game going - let's get back to basketball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

I did not suggest the scenario was very similar other than if a coach does something that clearly violates rules and you allow it, they will think that behavior is OK. Then the next time they get penalized when someone is not buying their position, they cannot say, "Well the other officials let me do it...."

In the OP, I do not know many coaches just entering the court until they are supposed to like an official actually grants a timeout.

Peace

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

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

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.

Where do the rules say anything about it having to be intentional?

The coach shall remain seated on the team bench, except:

The coach gets to stay in his box. If he leaves the box it's a technical. Almost all coaches follow this rule so why are we giving the misbehaving ones a pass?

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

Th

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.

And your point? :rolleyes:

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.

I'm not cherry picking anything. I know you didn't bring the DOG into the situation, and I know you weren't suggesting it's a good option. But the post I quoted above in red seemed to indicate you think there's precedent for calling a DOG in the OP. Otherwise, I'm clueless as to why you quoted that particular case play in this thread.

This particular play is, quite frankly, not going to happen to 99% of us over our entire careers of scholastic ball. One official deciding to use a little bit of "intent and purpose" application here and give the coach some leeway isn't going to lead the NFHS anywhere.

Allowing coaches to consistently roam outside their boxes, approaching the table or the endline at will, might just do that.

The reason I asked about the "just outside the box" situation was to point out that we all use judgment when enforcing this rule. If the coach in the OP had been having issues staying within the box, I'm calling the T. If he interferes with play, or makes me alter my path to my position at either C or L, I'm calling the T.

I'm not really talking about a coach with a foot on the line. I'm talking about a coach who's got both feet outside the coaching box; approaching either the end line or the table. Maybe he's three feet outside the box, but still out of bounds. Are you going to call this T or are you going to warn him first?

There's no rule basis for handling this any differently than you'd handle the OP. I don't care "why" he might be confused. If it's obvious to me that he's behaving as if there was a timeout called, I'll assume he was confused. The coach is just being dumb and that's not reason enough for me to ring him up. Now, if this was his second offense, you can disregard. If he'd had any issues with me at all, disregard.

He's not coaching, he's not arguing, he's not doing anything but making a (big) mistake. But I'm also not going to disparage an official who'd make the call. I'd back that call 100% as a partner without hesitation.

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

What if a state evaluator was there doing an evaluation on you, in preparation for the upcoming state tournament. Would anyone handle it differently?

What if instead of the coach having a brain fart, it was a player who had one and took off his jersey within the confines of the court?

I suppose it depends on your state and your evaluator, but I know ours (or at least the ones I've had) are pretty big on game management and I would think that calling the T might actually cost you a shot if you're on the fence. Maybe not, but I think that not calling it would garner more respect about how to handle the situation than calling it would.

Correct - they do not mark the coaching box.

1. This specific situation in the OP? No, I would not handle it differently if an evaluator was there. I mentioned that in my area, the coaching box is not something we stress over. It's not just me. It only becomes an issue if a coach is far outside their box or if they are outside the box and complaining.

2. Now you're changing the situation, and I said very clearly what my response was to the original situation.

I know we talked about this a couple weeks ago in a separate thread, but it still boggles my mind. I still subscribe to the 'can't use what doesn't exist' theory on this one.

Every once in a while I will have to direct a coach back to his box. the situations are typically when they are standing in front of the table or are down near the baseline. The common approach is to give them from one end of the chairs at their bench to about 14 feet down, which is arbitrary since we don't have it marked. As long as they are in front of the chairs, we tend to leave them alone.

Was it on here that I read someone advising not to start the game until the AD took care of this? We had to carry athletic tape in our jackets early in the season for this reason but most have some sort of semi-permanent demarcation now.

Just depends on where you are, I guess. In Oregon, we were supposed to mark the coaching box if it wasn't already marked. Here in Texas, not so strict. Do what you're told to do and enforce how you're told to enforce.

All of our boxes are marked. If they are not, the home coach is seatbelted.

I'm still amazed that I have at least one partner a year that walks the coach from one end of the box to the other and points to the lines -- I'm sure that gives a great first impression: "Here's your cage. Stay in it."

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

If you're referring to the OP, not in the slightest.

The bold section was what I originally responded to from Frezer. My point is by rule the confused kid doesn't get a technical unless it's the 2nd DOG in the game. At which point you're forced to give a technical -- doesn't matter if you don't want to give it to him or not. (This part is only about the case book play)

The rules don't say anything about giving a coach a warning. Therefore, a T is the only option if he runs out of the box. I don't think it's a good idea to teach officials to put aside rules because they judged spirit and intent. Top officials in most associations can make this call no problem, but on average officials will screw it up and get into trouble.

This is absurd. You don't know what top officials do in any other place than where you've officiated.

I do, but apparently you may not.

Here's a shocker for you - we also give coaches official warnings. Put 'em in the book and everything. :eek:

Why would this be a shocker? Lots of associations do this.

I'm only playing the rule side of the conversation. In this scenario I think he ran too far onto the court for me to give a warning. Plenty of great officials who would pass on a T and it'd be a good decision; it's just not one I'm likely to make.

I was sitting at a table (no visiting scorer) watching a game after mine (holiday tournament) when an official did this. I did everything I could to keep my eyes from visibly and audibly rolling.

I never saw one in Houston either.

Official warnings in the book was not a universal practice though. Some officials did them but many did not.

Oh and who could forget sounding your whistle before entering the court during pre-game? :)

That's exactly what I'm doing. My guess is that you would apply the rule as stated in the book in the second situation. It's interesting how some officials cherry pick rules and make justifications to applying/not applying them....

If I'm correct, in that you would give a T to a player that had that same brain fart as the coach had, and took off his jersey in the confines of the court, then in my opinion, your line of reasoning for giving the coach a pass falls short of being consistent.

It depends. If a kid takes his shirt off in anger or disgust - easy decision. If a kid is told they need to take off an illegal undershirt and was not told to leave the confines of the court, I might let it go. Whenever I tell a kid they need to take off an undershirt, I also tell them to go into the hallway.

Things are not black and white - there are shades of grey, and those shades are darker or lighter depending on where you live. I've never been in a place that expects me to do things by the letter of the book. But if I ever am in that place, I will do as they expect. I never gave warnings or blew my whistle when we came onto the court before I moved to Texas. But that's what they do here, so am I going to be a pioneer and do what you think I should do instead? No. That would be detrimental to my officiating career.

The first time I saw someone give an "official warning" after I moved here, I thought they were joking.

I do this for more competitive boys varsity games when there may be an issue of pregame dunking.

I have a supervisor or 2 who insist on this procedure.

And now after being here for 6 years, it's just a natural thing for me to do. It's effective more often than not. But it also isn't a requirement - sometimes behavior warrants a T without a warning. And then of course the next comment is "but I didn't get a warning first". And then there are the kids who will ask during pre-game warmups "can we dunk since no one blew their whistle when you came in?"...

How is it you know about what most associations do?

I always used this form to issue an "official warning". It worked really well!
 

I think you should probably hesitate before judging the quality of officials who would refrain from calling a T in the OP.

In the case play you posted, the point was that an immediate and direct T is not assessed because the player was confused. The rule is different, in that if the officials judge action to be intentional and deliberate, a T is in order with or without a previous DOG warning on record. With confusion, a DOG is sufficient.

The OP does not allow for a DOG. It's a T or nothing. Many would do each. That's ok. I know there are some "top officials" from several associations here who have stated they would refrain in that specific situation.

I'm not including myself here. I can tell you, however, that the response from my association if I were to call a T in the OP would be to publicly back my call if I made it, but any of the top officials observing my game would ask me privately if I could have maybe held off on it.

Perhaps I worded it wrong, but I wasn't trying to judge the quality of any officials. I'm trying to say the better an official is the better their judgement on what to let go.