Ts and More Ts

[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.

[SC Official]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

Which also include an indirect to the coach? ... 4) A1 is legally on the floor to begin Q2. A1 receives a technical foul for arguing before the ball becomes live.

Originally Posted by SC Official

... 4 as well only if it occurred before the expiration of the 1-minute intermission

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?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

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.

Why would A1 check in at the table?

[Valley Man]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

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

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.

[Valley Man]

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

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.

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.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Valley Man

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.

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SC Official

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

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?

[Nevadaref]

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.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

And bad breath.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Team control/throwin/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?

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The ball becoming live would only matter if the entry were not legal.

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