Ts and More Ts - Page 2

bob jenkins · #1 (**permalink**) Thu Oct 01, 2020, 07:27pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC Official

An intermission is one minute long. I see nothing in the rules that makes A1 bench personnel up until the moment the ball becomes live to start the new period.

By the way, these questions highlight the worst rule in NFHS. It's palpably stupid that the head coach loses the box because a player mouths off on the way to the bench after a quarter expires. The conversation telling the coach he has to sit is bound to turn hostile every single time.

The seatbelt rule is the NFHS's worst rule and it's not even close IMO.

FWIW (and I always caution against using rules from other sports), FED VB changed a rule this year so that if anyone on the bench (including the head coach) gets a YELLOW card, the head coach DOES NOT need to sit.

So, we might see a relaxation of this rule in the future for FED

SC Official · #2 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 02, 2020, 08:20am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

FWIW (and I always caution against using rules from other sports), FED VB changed a rule this year so that if anyone on the bench (including the head coach) gets a YELLOW card, the head coach DOES NOT need to sit.

So, we might see a relaxation of this rule in the future for FED

One can only hope. My concern is that FED does not want to be perceived as dialing back on sportsmanship, but if the VB committee was willing to do it, one can hope the basketball committee will be, too.

It's funny, we are always preached to about how we should treat technical fouls just like any other foul - but having the seatbelt rule alone makes them a very different foul.

Camron Rust · #3 (**permalink**) Fri Oct 02, 2020, 10:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by SC Official

One can only hope. My concern is that FED does not want to be perceived as dialing back on sportsmanship, but if the VB committee was willing to do it, one can hope the basketball committee will be, too.

It's funny, we are always preached to about how we should treat technical fouls just like any other foul - but having the seatbelt rule alone makes them a very different foul.

The seatbelt rule was tied to granting coaches the ability to stand and use the coaching box vs. being required to sit all the time. The coaches were given the box with the caveat that they'd lose that newly granted box it if they misused it. And remember, the box was once 6'. It is now 28'. I'm fine with a coach losing the box if they get a T....it is probably more motivation for them to control the bench than the T itself.

Nevadaref · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 30, 2020, 08:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valley Man

Which also include an indirect to the coach?

1) A1 is legally on the floor when Team A takes a 30 second TO. A1 receives a technical foul for arguing during the 30 second TO.

2) A1 is legally on the floor when Q1 ends. A1 receives a technical foul for arguing going to the bench.

3) A1 is legally on the floor when Q1 ends. A1 checks in with the table for Q2 and going back to bench receives a technical foul for arguing.

4) A1 is legally on the floor to begin Q2. A1 receives a technical foul for arguing before the ball becomes live.

1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No

#4 is the only scenario which has some gray area. According to 4-34-3 the team member/substitute becomes a player upon legally entering the court, except during an intermission. Therefore, the timing of the technical foul matters in this case. If the second horn, signaling the end of the 1-minute intermission has sounded, then this individual is a player and the head coach does not receive an indirect. The ball becoming live would only matter if the entry were not legal.