Coaches: Indirect vs. Direct
 

I'm really trying to clean up some little things in my knowledge of the rules this year. I've always been REALLY bad at direct vs. indirect techs against the coach. There's a good chart here but I have such a hard time remembering which is which. I use the process of elimination to have a rough idea of what type it is. So I know that players who are in the game on the court are penalized and not the coach. That's where it gets tough for me.

Administrative technicals not assessed directly or indirectly throws me off big time (Providing rosters; starters; numbers, changes, additions, etc.; team not ready to start half, TV monitor, electronic communication; not occupying assigned bench; more than five players; excess time-out; violation after team warning for delay; all players not returning at same time after time-out or intermission).

Is there a good way that you use to remember which is which? I've tried so hard over the past 6 years of doing varsity games to memorize which is which and keep them straight but I still find myself REALLY struggling to place the techs under the correct heading and which type, if any, goes directly or indirectly to the head coach. Is it accurate to say that poor behavior related techs (whether on HC or team member/assistant) are either direct/indirect and anything that's not behavior related is administrative and not indirect/direct?

The Fed also has the new POE this year saying that coaches are responsible for knowing the apparel rules, but it still seems like the onus is on us and there's really no penalty for the coach not knowing/enforcing the uniform rules prior to us getting out there. Is that accurate, or am I not reading that correctly?

I hate this time of year because I feel so rusty and unprepared to actually get out there and call a game.

If it's personal behavior -- assess it directly. If the person is someone the coach should be responsible for (someone on the bench), then the coach gets an I.

If it's not personal behavior, it's admin.

Start with that -- then you will have to memorize.

Read Rule 10-5. Anytime bench personnel (including the head coach) commits one of those actions, it is a technical foul charged DIRECTLY to that individual. If the offender is not the head coach, the head coach is also INDIRECTLY charged a technical foul which does NOT count toward the team foul count, but counts as one of his/her 3 total T's before being ejected. In any situation the coaching box is lost. You will notice that pretty much everything in Rule 10-5 is conduct-related.

Additionally, Rule 10-6 outlines more actions that, if committed by the head coach, result in a DIRECT technical. That includes allowing team members to participate while wearing illegal UNIFORMS (10-6-4), NOT illegal equipment/accessories. For the latter they simply cannot participate until they remove the illegal item(s).

Administrative/team technicals (Rules 10-1 and 10-2) count as a TEAM FOUL but do NOT get assessed to the head coach or a team member. And since there is no technical (direct or indirect) being charged to the head coach, the coaching box is not lost.

Here's the problem with the rulebook. It's not written for idiots like me, it's written by idiots like me. Rather than an easy-to-read and remember style such as

All of the following are administrative technical fouls that result only in a team foul;
All of the following are technical fouls indirectly assessed to the coach, etc.

It's written as:
All of the following are technical fouls.
Example A
Examble B
So on and so forth.
In the case of examples 1a, b, d (not c), e, f, 2, 4, blah blah blah.

I understand that I should have these memorized. That is 100% on me. But when trying to review these, they don't make it easy to refer back to the specific rules, at least in my mind. I guess I am trying to find the easiest way to remember which is what, mostly because I'm an idiot but don't want that to be evident when I inevitably come across one of these situations that I'm not 100% sure on.

Behavior = direct/indirect (Rules 10-5 and 10-6), charged to an individual and indirectly to the head coach if not his actions
Non-behavior = administrative/team (Rules 10-1 and 10-2), charged only as a team foul

I would encourage you to use this as a rule of thumb which will guide you to the correct adjudication 99% of the time and not get bent out of shape over memorizing every infraction. Obviously illegal uniforms are not behavior-related but that's why I didn't say 100%, and some might not agree on what all falls under "behavior."

Also, use common sense. If the assistant coach is acting up why wouldn't we charge him/her directly with a T?

I try to retain a measure of awareness of all these technicalities on technicals.
But I still carry a small laminated chart of the technical foul situations and penalties in my back pocket for ready reference should a weird situation arise in a game. Now, all I'd need to do is go to the locker room to get my glasses in order to be able to read the darn thing. Ugh.

One bit of advice given me: Start with the things that merit a direct against the coach, then go from there.

The coach only gets an indirect technical foul when somebody who is not one of the five players on the court gets a technical foul. That does not include any of the technical fouls they get for book fractions. It does include players who get a technical foul during pregame warmups or during halftime.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

To expand, the coach gets an indirect T when any team member receives a technical foul during any intermission, not just halftime. Everyone is bench personnel during intermissions. During charged timeouts, technicals assessed to any of the five players are not indirectly charged to the head coach.

And illegal uniforms are a direct T on the head coach, with nothing charged to anyone else. A maximum of one direct T can be assessed to the head coach for uniform infractions.

Oops. :(

If Six Was Nine (Jimi Hendrix, 1967) ...
 

The most common (if one can call it common, only two illegal uniform issues in almost four decades of officiating) uniform infractions that I've seen were due to illegal numbers, in both cases single numerals between six and nine. In both cases technicals were avoided due to jersey changes. Both were in Catholic middle school games where the assigner, who was also a league officer, wanted these issues dealt with, with no taping over numbers allowed.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.r...=0&w=228&h=161

I once had a team with a "7" in the book. Told the coach he could (1) get the guy a new number and change it without penalty (it was pre-10 minutes), (2) not play the guy and avoid penalty, or (3) let him play with "7" on and be one technical foul away from ejection (and sit the whole game). He chose (1).

Illegal numbers or teams wearing the same jersey color or unreadable numbers are probably the only situations where I'd issue or threaten to issue T's. If the uniforms had an illegal design or the home team was wearing something other than white, I'd likely just write a report to the state. But as always, check your local listings.

I’m confused. What is wrong with that statement? (I am working on 2 hours sleep and 3 starbucks so it might be something obvious)

I incorrectly stated it was an indirect on the coach in the quoted post.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk