Dunk in warmups then warning?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The "Written Warning Rule" is to be used when the HC has not lost the privilege suing the Coaching Box. Losing of the use of the Coaching Box is part of the penalty for a HC either receiving a TF for USC or for Bench Personnel receiving a TF that would also be charged to the HC as an IDTF.

Once the HC has lost the use of the Coaching Box there is no more need for a "Written Warning". The loss of using the Coaching Box is the HC's "Written Warning".

MTD, Sr.

Reference, please

[just another ref]

My thought: The written warning is pointless.

[BillyMac]

Head coach A is seatbelted because somebody on his bench mouthed off (one of the listed reasons for a written warning) above the level of a written warning, and was charged (with no written warning) with a technical foul. The written warning rule is now longer in effect. The next occurrence of bench personnel, including the head coach, creating an unsporting act goes directly to a technical foul. No written warnings anymore. Hopefully, we can all agree on that.

Head coach B is seatbelted because somebody on his team dunked pregame (not one of the listed reasons for a written warning). The game starts and head coach B is standing and coaching in front of his seat (one of the listed reasons for a written warning). Does he get a written warning, or does he immediately get a technical foul?

[just another ref]

So y'all are saying that if a head coach has received an indirect technical the warning is no longer a possibility? Is this written somewhere?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The "Written Warning Rule" is to be used when the HC has not lost the privilege using the Coaching Box. Losing of the use of the Coaching Box is part of the penalty for a HC either receiving a TF for USC or for Bench Personnel receiving a TF that would also be charged to the HC as an IDTF.

Once the HC has lost the use of the Coaching Box there is no more need for a "Written Warning". The loss of using the Coaching Box is the HC's "Written Warning".

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Reference, please

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Head coach A is seatbelted because somebody on his bench mouthed off (one of the listed reasons for a written warning) above the level of a written warning, and was charged (with no written warning) with a technical foul. The written warning rule is now longer in effect. The next occurrence of bench personnel, including the head coach, creating an unsporting act goes directly to a technical foul. No written warnings anymore. Hopefully, we can all agree on that.

Head coach B is seatbelted because somebody on his team dunked pregame (not one of the listed reasons for a written warning). The game starts and head coach B is standing and coaching in front of his seat (one of the listed reasons for a written warning). Does he get a written warning, or does he immediately get a technical foul?

Originally Posted by just another ref

So y'all are saying that if a head coach has received an indirect technical the warning is no longer a possibility? Is this written somewhere?

Let us go back in time to last year. B1 dunks in pre-game warm-ups. B1 is charged with a TF for dunking a Dead Ball. B-HC is charged with an IDTF and loses the use of the Coaching Box. Early in the 1st QT B-HC is standing in the Coaching Box coaching his team. By Rule, B-HC is charged with a DTF for an infraction of the Coaching Box Rule; no waring: WHACK!

Why would we treat the play in the above paragraph any different today than last year? We would not.

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Let us go back in time to last year. B1 dunks in pre-game warm-ups. B1 is charged with a TF for dunking a Dead Ball. B-HC is charged with an IDTF and loses the use of the Coaching Box. Early in the 1st QT B-HC is standing in the Coaching Box coaching his team. By Rule, B-HC is charged with a DTF for an infraction of the Coaching Box Rule; no waring: WHACK!

Why would we treat the play in the above paragraph any different today than last year? We would not.

MTD, Sr.

The reason you might treat it differently today than last year is that the written warning was not an option at all at that time. Now it is an option. I see nothing which says receiving an IDTF changes this option.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So y'all are saying that if a head coach has received an indirect technical the warning is no longer a possibility? Is this written somewhere?

no, we all are not saying that.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

no, we all are not saying that.

We've been told that if the head coach receives an indirect technical foul, or a direct technical foul, for one of the "warning reasons" that he will no longer be getting the privilege of receiving a written warning.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Article 1a: Bench personnel shall not disrespectfully address an official.
Article 1b: Bench personnel shall not attempt to influence an official's decision.
Article 1d: Bench personnel shall not disrespectfully address, bait, or taunt an opponent.
Article 1e: Bench personnel shall not object to an official's decision by rising for the bench and using gestures.
Article 1f: Bench personnel shall not incite undesirable crown reactions.
Article 2: Bench personnel shall not enter the court unless by permission of an official to tend to an injured player.
Article 4: Bench personnel shall not stand at the team bench while the clock is running or is stopped, and must remain seated (with exceptions: head coach, team member reports to table, timeout and intermissions, spontaneously react to outstanding play or acknowledge replaced players).

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We've been told that if the head coach receives an indirect technical foul, or a direct technical foul, for one of the "warning reasons" that he will no longer be getting the privilege of receiving a written warning.

I would agree with that