Referee.com Case
 

This is the daily caseplay from Referee.com (I've copied only the NFHS part). The question I have is about the technical foul not counting towards the team. That's not correct, is it? The citations don't address that particular part of the ruling. Have I simply misread "team" to mean "team total" and not "team technical"?

PLAY:
Team A is granted a timeout. As A1 is walking toward team A’s huddle, A1 makes a derogatory comment to an official. The official assesses a technical foul to A1. What sort of technical foul is charged and to whom is it charged?

RULING:
A player is one of the five team members legally on the playing court to participate. Those individuals retain player status during a timeout. Therefore, the foul is a player technical.... The technical is not charged to the team nor head coach (NFHS 4-34-1, 10-4-6a, 4.34.1)

All Technical Fouls are charged to the team at the NF level. Now I believe this is still a player Technical foul as they stated, but it would be wrong that the team would not have that foul count towards their team total.

Peace

If "team" means "team technical," the ruling is correct, although somewhat ambiguous. If "team" means "team total," it's incorrect, because, as you point out, all technicals in NFHS apply to the team total.

The point of the case may simply be that the player in the game is still a player during the time-out for technical foul purposes, in which case, I'm reading too much into this.

Lots of time on my hands these days, with little better to do.

Does Anybody Proofread Or Edit Anymore ...
 

Agree, but it could have been better worded.

If the author is attempting to make the point that the five players remain players during a time-out, then the issue lies with the wording of this situation. It is ambiguous at best. Furthermore, under NFHS rules a player technical foul can be earned by someone who is not currently one of the five players. Simply change A1 to A8 in the given scenario. The offender would still receive a player technical foul for the unsporting act despite being a team member who is not in the game and part of bench personnel. The only difference in the ruling would be that the head coach also receives an indirect technical.