And 1 followed by a T.
 

Team A drives to the basket....misses. Grabs rebound, put back, foul, and 1. Team A coach standing, hands above head, wanting the foul on the first shot. I am the trail, switching with my partner who was the lead, and called the foul, as i pass the coach i remind that her that she is not allowed to stand and make gestures. Partner also sees her gesturing, and also reminds her not to stand...as i am getting ready to administer FT, Team A head coach gets whacked by my partner. T. Get together to discuss, clear partner from coach, clear the lane....shoot the And 1 for Team A. Heading to the other end to shoot Tech. Team A coach wants a TO. Do not grant it. Is that correct? Told her she could have it after the T free throws.

No reason not to grant the time-out.

Why did your partner remind her "not to stand"?

No. Rule 5-83b: TO occurs when an official "grants and signals a player’s/head coach’s oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when...The ball is dead, unless [irrelevant]."

.....and gesture. And he didn't hear me remind her as i went by.

Makes sense.....thanks. We booted it. She basically had a TO anyway with her team huddled when team B was shooting the Techs. She did not want it after that. Thanks again

Iowa rescinded its seatbelt rule several years ago, didn't it, so your caution must have been for gesturing, not for standing; if your partner warned her not to stand ("also reminds her not to stand"), that was also incorrect, unless she had previously lost her coaching box privilege.

I think multiple warnings for the same infraction looks really bad. I understand that you may not have had a chance to let your parents know you gave the first warning, so I'm just saying.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Righteous ...
 

Just curious, were any of the "reminders" official written warnings?

Are we to assume that the technical foul was for standing and gesturing? The description of events contains two "reminders" of such before the technical foul, but no statement of the reason for the actual technical foul.

Unless the is no coaching box in Iowa, or the head coach had lost the coaching box privilege, depending on its severity, the gesture alone (even without standing) may have been unsporting enough for a technical foul. Of course the standing does add something to the gesture.

No reason not to grant the timeout. Maybe the timeout was being confused with the rule regarding "substitutes" only before the final attempt and after the final attempt of multiple free throws, but that's only for personal fouls, not technical fouls.

While the technical foul may have been righteous, there are many questions to be answered.

Iowa has the box.

But did away with the seatbelt several years ago, didn't it?

When You're Pissed Off, You Say Stuff ...
 

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we still have a few grizzled veterans officiating who occasionally mistakenly tell a coach to sit down to deal with a problem. Not very often, but occasionally. A few retire, or pass away, each year.

(When I started officiating, I was going to wakes and funerals for parents of officiating colleagues. Now I'm going to wakes and funerals for parents of officiating colleagues, and to wakes and funerals for officiating colleagues.)

Things Officials Should Probably Not Be Saying In A Game

… probably for reasons of tradition, there have been things that officials often, or sometimes, say during a game that do not have any basis in the rules, and should probably not be said in a game.

"Sit down", is occasionally stated by an official to a coach who is acting in an unsporting way, but who has not yet been charged with a technical foul, is not rule based. Back in the “olden days” of the “seatbelt rule”, this was a common method of dealing with coaches who have gone, or who are about to go, “over the line”. Now, with the coaching box, officials can only tell coaches to sit down after they have been charged with a direct technical foul, or an indirect technical foul, and even then, there are still a few occasions when these coaches can still legally stand up.

Correct.

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

I'm confused because there was a seatbelt rule before the coaching box (only stand for a few reasons), and a seatbelt rule after the coaching box (only stand for a few reasons after a technical foul).

Please clarify.

I think we were both talking about the same thing. The advent/allowance of a coaching box signaled the end of the seat belt rule.

Seatbelt Rule ...
 

As far as I'm concerned there is a seatbelt rule still in place, but one that's not as restrictive as the old rule.

The new rule (with a coaching box) seatbelts a head coach after a technical foul (direct or indirect), but even after being seatbelted still allows him to stand up for a few listed reasons (request a timeout or signal his players to request a timeout, to confer with personnel at the scorer’s table to request a timeout for correctable error, or timing, scoring or alternating-possession errors, to replace or remove a disqualified/injured/directed to leave the game player, during a charged time out, or the intermission between quarters and extra periods, to spontaneously react to an outstanding play by a team member or to acknowledge a replaced player).

In ancient times, the old seatbelt rule (before the coaching box) was much more restrictive, during the entire game (even absent a direct or indirect technical foul) the coach had to sit on the bench except for the reasons listed above.