2017-18 NFHS Interpretations, Pt.2

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Raymond

NCAA Men's officials are being told to issue T's after giving warnings this season, especially now that the coaches have a 38' box to wander.

Are you speaking to giving warnings for coaching outside of the box? In which case the following T would be a Class B

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Are you speaking to giving warnings for coaching outside of the box? In which case the following T would be a Class B

Yes. And they also want warnings in the book for bad behavior, with subsequent T's.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Yes. And they also want warnings in the book for bad behavior, with subsequent T's.

Interesting you should point that out. Taking a close look at the new NFHS warning language (4-48), it's broken up into two parts as well: warnings for 10-5 conduct stuff, and warnings for 10-6-1 coaching box infractions. That leads me to believe that I could give a warning for a routine coaching box violation, and then later in the game give a warning for a conduct-related incident.

I've heard many folks (on this forum and in my association meetings) say that "you shouldn't be giving out multiple warnings in a game." I would argue that's true for each component (10-5 and 10-6-1), but not necessarily* collectively.

* Of course, if a coaching box infraction is coincident with poor conduct, the warning I give (assuming I don't issue a T instead) will be for both aspects.

Thoughts from the group?

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Interesting you should point that out. Taking a close look at the new NFHS warning language (4-48), it's broken up into two parts as well: warnings for 10-5 conduct stuff, and warnings for 10-6-1 coaching box infractions. That leads me to believe that I could give a warning for a routine coaching box violation, and then later in the game give a warning for a conduct-related incident.

I've heard many folks (on this forum and in my association meetings) say that "you shouldn't be giving out multiple warnings in a game." I would argue that's true for each component (10-5 and 10-6-1), but not necessarily* collectively.

* Of course, if a coaching box infraction is coincident with poor conduct, the warning I give (assuming I don't issue a T instead) will be for both aspects.

Thoughts from the group?

Yes those are two different types of warnings. Although if a coach has a prior coaching box violation perhaps consider skipping the warning for behavior and going straight to T.

[Smitty]

It's a slippery slope to start giving out multiple warnings. It's like double daring them. I like the way we are doing it. One and only one warning to the head coach only.

[deecee]

Ahh the good ol coaching box issue. At the HS level I don't expect much change. I have always enforced and walked coaches back a couple times and then T'd.

My one JV game a year last year (this is why I hate working these games) had a coach at the table "coaching" his kids. I walk him back. We then have FT's and he's in the same spot. I go over and walk him back and tell him enough is enough. I turn to walk back and tell my partner that he's been warned about the box. My partner says to me, no joke, "What are you going to do he's back out.." Sure enough he is back at midcourt by the table. I T him.

At half time my partner said to me that it's a JV game and I should have let him go. I told him that's an unacceptable approach to the job and he should apply the rules. Especially after I warned the coach and told him I warned him.

Had the same partner who bounced the ball to a kid in a varsity game a couple weeks later for a FT and the kid was 2 feet outside the semi circle behind the FT line. I call a violation and he after the game said that I shouldn't have made that call. I told him he shouldn't have bounced the kid the ball in that position and it was lazy mechanics. I think he rated me poorly on both games (which is another pet peeve - officials rating officials).

[OKREF]

We've been instructed that after the first warning, next is a T. Not to have 2 warnings

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Taking a close look at the new NFHS warning language (4-48), it's broken up into two parts as well: warnings for 10-5 conduct stuff, and warnings for 10-6-1 coaching box infractions. That leads me to believe that I could give a warning for a routine coaching box violation, and then later in the game give a warning for a conduct-related incident.

4-48 NEW: Warning for Coach/Team Conduct
A warning to a coach/team for misconduct is an administrative procedure by an official, which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the Head Coach:
Art. 1 . . . For conduct, such as that described in rule 10-5-1a,b,d,e,f; 10-5-2; 10-5-4 the official shall warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul shall be assessed. Note: A warning is not required prior to calling a technical foul.
Art. 2 . . . For the first violation of rule 10-6-1, the official shall warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul shall be assessed. Note: A warning is not required prior to calling a technical foul.

Rationale: Stopping play and making sure that the bench and the coach know that an official warning has been given, sends a clear message to everyone in the gym and impacts the behavior of the coach, and in some cases the behavior of the opposing coach. This change in behavior creates a better atmosphere and many times avoids the need to administer a technical foul

New rule for officials to issue a warning (4-48-1 and 2): Officials may now issue a warning to the coach or the team bench. These warnings can be for conduct that is described in 10-5 or 10-6. If the offense is deemed to be major, the official may assess a technical foul in either situation. A warning is not required prior to assessing a technical foul. These warnings will be recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the head coach.

Two separate warnings for nonmajor (conduct and coaching box) offenses?

[SC Official]

According to the NFHS Preseason Guide, it is improper to warn a coach more than once, even if the infractions are different.

Play 3: Team A's head coach is outside of the coaching box and is coaching his or her team. An official stops play to have the scorer record the warning in the scorebook and then notifies team A's head coach that he or she has been warned for being outside the coaching box. Later in the game team A's head coach, while within the coaching box, is demonstratively waving his or her hands at an official in disgust over a foul ruling. An official stops play and goes through the process to have a warning recorded.
Ruling 3: The official was correct to rule a warning to the coach for being outside of the coaching box. It also is acceptable to work through the same preventive officiating practices to remind the coach to remain within the coaching box as done in prior years. Repeated or constant attempts to keep a coach within a coaching box is not acceptable. It is not correct to rule a warning later to the same coach who was already warned. Once another or different rule is broken, a technical foul must be ruled. Further, a coach demonstratively waving his or her hands is a major violation of the rule and is a direct technical foul regardless of a prior warning.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Interesting you should point that out. Taking a close look at the new NFHS warning language (4-48), it's broken up into two parts as well: warnings for 10-5 conduct stuff, and warnings for 10-6-1 coaching box infractions. That leads me to believe that I could give a warning for a routine coaching box violation, and then later in the game give a warning for a conduct-related incident.

I've heard many folks (on this forum and in my association meetings) say that "you shouldn't be giving out multiple warnings in a game." I would argue that's true for each component (10-5 and 10-6-1), but not necessarily* collectively.

* Of course, if a coaching box infraction is coincident with poor conduct, the warning I give (assuming I don't issue a T instead) will be for both aspects.

Thoughts from the group?

Actually, just found out last night through a conference clinic that we are not allowed to give a book warning for bad behavior, just coaching box infractions, so I stand corrected on that statement.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by deecee

Ahh the good ol coaching box issue. At the HS level I don't expect much change. I have always enforced and walked coaches back a couple times and then T'd.

My one JV game a year last year (this is why I hate working these games) had a coach at the table "coaching" his kids. I walk him back. We then have FT's and he's in the same spot. I go over and walk him back and tell him enough is enough. I turn to walk back and tell my partner that he's been warned about the box. My partner says to me, no joke, "What are you going to do he's back out.." Sure enough he is back at midcourt by the table. I T him.

At half time my partner said to me that it's a JV game and I should have let him go. I told him that's an unacceptable approach to the job and he should apply the rules. Especially after I warned the coach and told him I warned him.

Had the same partner who bounced the ball to a kid in a varsity game a couple weeks later for a FT and the kid was 2 feet outside the semi circle behind the FT line. I call a violation and he after the game said that I shouldn't have made that call. I told him he shouldn't have bounced the kid the ball in that position and it was lazy mechanics. I think he rated me poorly on both games (which is another pet peeve - officials rating officials).

Why a violation? Shouldn't the penalty be a little more severe?

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Why a violation? Shouldn't the penalty be a little more severe?

Isn't POI to place ball on FT line and then call violation when the shooter enters or better yet.... delay of game?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

Why a violation? Shouldn't the penalty be a little more severe?

That is the correct ruling. It is simply a violation by the free throw shooter. Same violation as if the shooting team delays coming back from a time-out and the ball is placed on the free throw line. As soon as the shooter steps into the semi-circle, it's a violation.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by SC Official

According to the NFHS Preseason Guide, it is improper to warn a coach more than once, even if the infractions are different.

Play 3: Team A's head coach is outside of the coaching box and is coaching his or her team. An official stops play to have the scorer record the warning in the scorebook and then notifies team A's head coach that he or she has been warned for being outside the coaching box. Later in the game team A's head coach, while within the coaching box, is demonstratively waving his or her hands at an official in disgust over a foul ruling. An official stops play and goes through the process to have a warning recorded.
Ruling 3: The official was correct to rule a warning to the coach for being outside of the coaching box. It also is acceptable to work through the same preventive officiating practices to remind the coach to remain within the coaching box as done in prior years. Repeated or constant attempts to keep a coach within a coaching box is not acceptable. It is not correct to rule a warning later to the same coach who was already warned. Once another or different rule is broken, a technical foul must be ruled. Further, a coach demonstratively waving his or her hands is a major violation of the rule and is a direct technical foul regardless of a prior warning.

Good catch. NFHS already addressed it. Thanks.

With this in mind, I think my tendency will be to save my warning for conduct stuff, because non-egregious box issues can be handled with preventive officiating just as the interp above suggests.

Definitely worth including in the pre-game with the crew. I don't think it would behoove us to have three different philosophies out there when it comes to warnings.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by Raymond

That is the correct ruling. It is simply a violation by the free throw shooter. Same violation as if the shooting team delays coming back from a time-out and the ball is placed on the free throw line. As soon as the shooter steps into the semi-circle, it's a violation.

10.4.5c
10:Fouls and Penalties
4:Player Technical
5: A player shall not:
Delay the game by acts such as:

c. The free thrower fails to be in the free-throw semicircle when the official is ready to administer the free throw unless the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect following a time-out or intermission.

The play described IS NOT a Resumption of Play. Thus 10.4.5c should be the ruling. It is a violation if A1 has disposal of the ball inside the Free Throw Circle, THEN steps over any line