Ts and More Ts
 

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.

2 and 3 for sure, 4 as well only if it occurred before the expiration of the 1-minute intermission

Intermission Clock ...
 

So A1 becomes a "player" when intermission ends, which is solely dependent on the sixty second intermission clock and has nothing to do with live ball/dead ball?

And before the sixty second intermission clock completely runs down, A1 is considered a team member and bench personnel, under the responsibility of the head coach, who would be charged with an indirect technical foul?

And during the short period of time between the intermission clock ending the sixty second intermission and before the ball becoming live when at the disposal of the inbounder, A1 would be a "player" and would not be under the responsibility of the head coach, who would not be charged with an indirect technical foul?

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.5...=0&w=247&h=171

Confused In Connecticut ...
 

Why would A1 check in at the table?

Many teams around here send their starters for quarters to table to "check in". Not something I choose to worry about

Check In ...
 

When in Rome ...

I believe that by rule only the quarter "starters" who weren't players who finished the previous quarter, who are now substitutes, have to check in (during halftime any team representative can check them in).

I choose not to "worry about" substitutes who check in, or don't check in, during the intermission between quarters, unless it's very obvious to me that they checked in after the fifteen second warning horn (for whom I make sit out at the table for the next opportunity to substitute). Other than those, I really can't keep track of who finished the previous quarter and who is starting the subsequent quarter, and who checked in, or didn't check in. A substitute coming out of the intermission (or even a timeout) team huddle who walks directly onto the court without checking in probably wouldn't get my attention, or any adjudication, in my game.

If that's the worst thing that I do officiating in that game that night, I can live with that, have an enjoyable ride home, and sleep well that night.

Totally agree with you there!

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

Let's go to the above. That is why I put ball becomes live. I think the coach still gets an indirect until the ball is at the disposal of the thrower.

Great Questions ...
 

Liked your original questions. Made us think about the impact (or lack of) of a live ball or dead ball to officially end an intermission, and the impact of the behavior of a player or bench personnel on the liabilities and responsibilities of the head coach regarding indirect technical fouls.

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.

How's That For Empathy ???
 

I understand your pain, it does seem odd to "split hairs" and differentiate between intermissions (bench personnel) and timeouts (players), but the seatbelt rule is a great tool to have in our black tool belt to keep those sitting, or not sitting, on the bench, or in the bench area, including adult assistants, and student athlete team members not in the game, under control.

Since head coaches were first allowed to stand to coach back in ancient times (back when it was, as far as I'm concerned, a real seatbelt rule), even before the new written warning rule, one word by me to the head coach about some problems with his bench and the possibility that he could be standing, brought an instant and immediate end to any shenanigans on the bench, or in the bench area, even if I couldn't specifically identify the individual culprits on the bench. Few coaches want to sit and coach.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.f...=0&w=333&h=167

Pick Your Poison ...
 

Team control/throwin/team control fouls/backcourt/backcourt exceptions?

Player delays the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play technical foul/team delays the game by acts such as: preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play technical foul/warnings?

Contact above the shoulders Point of Emphasis/intentional foul/flagrant foul/personal foul/violation?

At least one of these has to be close?

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.V...=0&w=300&h=300

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.

Ts and More Ts
 

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.V...=0&w=300&h=300
And bad breath.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No seatbelt rule in the college game and the coaches behave better on average. This is for many reasons but one of them, in my opinion, is that officials are less hesitant to whack because they don't have to have the "coach, you've lost the box" conversation which everyone knows just throws fuel on the fire.

The seatbelt rule just gives high school officials something else we have to police that has nothing to do with the game. It's a well-intentioned rule that does anything but make the game better.

I said "worst rule," not "worst written rule." There's nothing wrong with those rules you mentioned other than the NFHS's sloppy editing.

Sit A Tick ...
 

Good point. Could one example be a substitute that didn't sit a tick?

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.0...=0&w=300&h=300

Unleaded 87 Octane ...
 

Agree, which is why this is always a key part of my pregame: If one of us calls a technical foul on a coach, the noncalling official will remind the coach that he must sit down.


https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.z...=0&w=300&h=300

Coaches are going to react negatively no matter which official gives him the reminder.

Sloppy Editing ...
 

Good point. Agree. Instead of being changed, all three can be fixed.

Double Bang ...
 

Just trying some game management to possibly avoid a rapid fire double bang.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.1...=0&w=264&h=176

Hesitant To Whack ...
 

I can't deny that this exists, but in my opinion it's way way down the list of reasons why some high school officials are reluctant to "whack".

One main reason here in my little corner of Connecticut is that coaches "vote in" state tournament officials, so officials don't want to offend coaches, often ignoring the fact that the other coach, who also votes, is saying to himself, "Hey these officials are letting him get away with murder while I'm acting in a sporting manner".

Another main reason is that we've got some guys who see technical fouls as a sign of weakness, taking pride their ability to get through their games using game management skills other than technical fouls, some who brag about such skills, "I haven't given a coach a technical foul in years".

And we have some young, inexperienced guys who are just downright intimidated by some powerful, aggressive, challenging coaches, and such officials will avoid (short of flagrant action) "whacking" just to avoid the technical foul confrontation, falsely hoping that ignoring the situation will make it go away.

And we've got a few guys who just don't want to do the paperwork. Technical fouls have to be reported, in writing, to our assignment commissioner. Technical fouls accompanied by ejections have to be reported, in writing, to our assignment commissioner and to the state interscholastic sports governing body.

I will admit that I think about the "seatbelt" rule, but only after I charge the technical foul and administer the penalties. I never immediately tell the coach he has to sit (fuel and fire), I wait to see if he remembers and adheres to the rule. After going up and down the court a few times after the technical foul penalties I might say to myself, "Damn, he's still standing", and try to get my partner to remind the coach without stopping the game, barring that, I will mention it to the coach as I run past. Or perhaps my partner, or I, will mention it to the coach during the next clock stopped dead ball period.

I still think that the seatbelt is a good tool with the benefits slightly outweighing the risks, risks that I admit do exist. High school coaches (I know, I coached middle school basketball for twenty-five years) don't want to coach while sitting, and will do everything in their power to keep their bench personnel on the straight and narrow to avoid being "seatbelted". Coaching while sitting is awkward, and "out of the zone", for many coaches.

https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.n...=0&w=294&h=165

I do not think coaches having or not having a box makes much difference. There are coaches at the college level that are never T'd and they have no seatbelt rule. That might be up to each official as to if they want to deal with the fallout. Most of the time it is a supervisor that is making it harder for officials to even think about giving a T. I have had assignor that did not want us to give a T to the coaches and it caused more issues than giving Ts. I know a college assignor that told officials in his staff meeting, "Use your people skills" which meant that if you gave a T, you would be penalized when the coach complained. There were D1 officials on that staff that was perplexed about how to deal with certain coaches. That supervisor has since been released and it was different this year. I think Ts are hard enough without all the hullabaloo about them. Most Ts I give to a coach, the last thing is whether they can sit. I am sure it is a factor for some more than others, but I do not think that is the "reason" officials give or do not give them. I know coaches that get them that sit their little behinds right down because they knew it was coming. Not all of them we give is a shock or even unexpected by the coach.

Peace

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

For the record I agree with you, there are multiple factors that go into officials at both the high school and college levels not penalizing unsporting behavior. But from my experience I have worked with many officials in high school games who are hesitant to give T's because they don't want to be the seatbelt police the rest of the game. I don't either but I'm not willing to let coaches act like buffoons as an alternative. Of course, I think a lot of high school officials just refuse to give T's regardless.

Not having the seatbelt rule works just fine in the college game. 9 out of 10 times the coach who gets whacked is back to coaching the next possession and isn't a problem for the rest of the game. I do think high school coaches as a whole are more immature but the reality is that they are very well aware of the consequences should they receive a second T.

Of course there will be the morals police who say "Oh, but this is high school, it's an extension of the classroom." That's lovely but does not mean we should have to babysit the coach the rest of the game to make sure he stays seated. That makes our job unnecessarily more difficult.

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.

Some Call It The Good Old Days ...
 

Ancient times. The real "seatbelt rule".

Agreed. Too many already have a "designated sniper" and it will only get worse.

It's a COACHING box, not a COACH'S box.

Memories Light The Corners Of My Mind ...
 

Misty watercolor memories ...

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1016242

Occurred in this game:

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1017795

The game evolved to allow them to stand, and the game can evolve to get rid of the current rule, as well.

The two free throws and possession for the opponent are more than enough motivation for coaches to behave themselves and control their benches. And if they aren't, that is why we have T's at our disposal. Of course, if an official is unwilling to penalize misconduct from the bench, that is a different issue in and of itself.

Motivational Technical Fouls ...
 

Four years as a high school player (often on the bench watching my coach), twenty-five years as a coach, forty years as an official. Over the years I've found that many coaches are willing to take technical fouls just to motivate their players and to rile up their fans, often timing their poor behavior "act" so that the technical foul is charged when the opponent has the ball to lessen the "sting".

Not for me however. As a middle school coach I never used technical fouls as motivational tools but rather as more of a way to support my players. I occasionally did "take" technical fouls to support my players (and show my support of players to their parents in the bleachers) who had been penalized by obviously poor officiating. Especially when they've done something legal exactly as I taught them in practice, that was ruled illegal by an under qualified official (middle school games don't always have the luxury of getting well qualified officials). For me, it was worth the two free throws (most of my coaching career was before the coaching box "seatbelt" rule) to show my full support of my players, even in a close game (but never late in a game, I wasn't a stupid coach).

Take my word for it, coaches really hate coaching while sitting. Late in my coaching career I was once "whacked" very early in a road game (no warning) by a non-certified official, a physical education teacher from the "host" school with a Foot Locker jersey (that's almost completely true), for coaching while outside the box (it was six foot box back then, and not paying close attention, I was definitely well outside the box, I still don't know how I got all the way down to the endlne corner), and I really, really hated coaching while sitting. I actually had one of my bench players sit next to me whose sole job was to keep reminding me to sit down to avoid an ejection (no assistant coach). Take my word for this, sitting can be distracting to a coach, and may slightly, but actually, impact his coaching ability.

For coaches considering taking a "motivational technical", possibly timing it to reduce the "sting", the additional penalty of having to sit may outweigh the two free throws alone, and they may think twice about their poor behavior.

And I still disagree that the "seatbelt" is a main deterrent that keeps many officials from charging technical fouls. Yes, it may be one deterrent, but it's way down on the list (see my post above).

I won't lose any sleep if the NFHS changes the rule as they did with volleyball, but I'll use the rule as a game management tool until it's changed.

The "seatbelt" rule is part of doing business when basketball officials have to take care of business.

Wait? I really like the sound of that.

The "seatbelt" rule is part of doing business when basketball officials have to take care of business. © 2020 BillyMac