Adminstrative techncial question

[sj]

A20 dunks the ball and then clearly taunts B30 and the Lead calls a technical foul on A20. As he's walking to the table to report he is in front of Team A's bench when A33 directs a disrespectful comment towards the official which results in a technical on A33. As the official is reporting at the table the scorer informs him that there is no A33 in the book.

4 shots and the ball for B and an indirect on the head coach. Do you also give an administrative technical for A33 not being in the book?

[SC Official]

Why wouldn't you?

[sj]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Why wouldn't you?

What Rut says.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Why wouldn't you?

Depending on the circumstances, you could argue that that this is just a bench technical (like on a manager, asst. coach, or injured player sitting on the bench but not in the book).

It's an interesting question since the rule book uses the term "require" a change. But who is requiring it -- the official or the coach?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by sj

A20 dunks the ball and then clearly taunts B30 and the Lead calls a technical foul on A20. As he's walking to the table to report he is in front of Team A's bench when A33 directs a disrespectful comment towards the official which results in a technical on A33. As the official is reporting at the table the scorer informs him that there is no A33 in the book.

4 shots and the ball for B and an indirect on the head coach. Do you also give an administrative technical for A33 not being in the book?

I am assuming A33 is on the bench and not in the game correct? If that is the case then my answer is based on the fact that A33 was bench personnel at the time of that technical foul.

I would say yes if they are adding that player to the list to play. If they do not ever play that player, then I would say no they do not get the technical foul for administrative purposes. They are still bench personnel because a team's manager can be on the bench. But if they are never put them in the game, then I do not see how you give them a T for them not being in the book.

Peace

[sj]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am assuming A33 is on the bench and not in the game correct? If that is the case then my answer is based on the fact that A33 was bench personnel at the time of that technical foul.

I would say yes if they are adding that player to the list to play. If they do not ever play that player, then I would say no they do not get the technical foul for administrative purposes. They are still bench personnel because a team's manager can be on the bench. But if they are never put them in the game, then I do not see how you give them a T for them not being in the book.

Peace

That's what we went with. Was just wondering if there was something else to consider. He never reported to the table and hadn't played so the reasons for a technical given the case 3.2.2.C didn't apply. It's immaterial but apparently he was hurt and wasn't going to play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by sj

That's what we went with. Was just wondering if there was something else to consider. He never reported to the table and hadn't played so the reasons for a technical given the case 3.2.2.C didn't apply. It's immaterial but apparently he was hurt and wasn't going to play.

I had to look up the rule to make sure that only a T was for them being added to the book. When they come into the game they would have to be added to the book. If they stay on the bench they do not have to be added to the book. So I would only give a T if they play and tell that to the coach and the scorekeeper. It is semantics on many levels, but do not complicate the issue if you do not have to.

Peace

[SC Official]

I guess my question would be why is this individual in uniform if he's not going to become a player under any circumstances? If he's just going to be regular bench personnel that night then he shouldn't be wearing a uniform implying that he's a team member required to be listed in the book.

[sj]

Originally Posted by SC Official

I guess my question would be why is this individual in uniform if he's not going to become a player under any circumstances? If he's just going to be regular bench personnel that night then he shouldn't be wearing a uniform implying that he's a team member required to be listed in the book.

Looking at definitions I would say that while he meets the definition for being bench personnel he doesn't meet the definition for being a team member. A team member is bench personnel who is in uniform and is "eligible to become a player." Since he's not in the book he's not eligible to become a player at the point all this occurred. As Rut says it might be semantics but that's a take on it anyways.