Warning ???
 

Disclaimer: For IAABO eyes only. Below is not a NFHS interpretation, it's only an IAABO International interpretation which obviously doesn't mean a hill of beans to most members of this Forum.

Got an IAABO Inside the Lines bulletin this morning with two quiz questions with some oddly worded answers.

No need to discuss whether, or not, the technical fouls were deserved, I'd like to concentrate on the "tacked on" warning.

1. B1 places both hands on Dribbler A1 and is charged with a hand checking foul. As the official is reporting the foul, the Team B head coach asks, “What did the B1 do?” The official replies, that B1 had two hands on A1. The head coach of Team B screams “That’s a terrible call!” The official should:
A. Call an unsporting technical foul on the head coach.
B. Ignore the Situation.
C. Issue a behavior warning on the head coach.
D. A & C.

Answer: 1. D-10-6-Penalty.

2. As A1 is cutting through the lane and yells “get your hands off of me!” Moments later, the assistant coach yells “Get their (expletive) hands off us!”
The official should:
A. Ignore the Assistant Coach.
B. Call a technical foul on the Assistant Coach.
C. Issue a behavior warning on the Assistant Coach.
D. B & C.

Answer: 2. D-10-6-Penalty

Did IAABO add "Issue a behavior warning" to the technical foul answer to stress that a technical foul without a previous warning means that the coach has lost the privilege of getting a warning later in that game?

Should the behavior warning be actually "issued" (in the scorebook)?

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

Defender Crosses The Plane ...
 

Reminds me of an inbound play where the defender crosses the plane and slaps the ball (technical foul), or the inbounder (intentional foul), with no previous delay warning (of any type).

That also counts as a team warning for delay so that the next delay (of any type) is a technical foul.

Should the delay warning be actually "issued" (in the scorebook)? I believe that it should be.

From the Most Misunderstood Basketball Rules list:

The defender may not break the boundary plane during a throwin until the ball has been released on a throwin pass. If the defender breaks the boundary plane during a throwin before the ball has been released on a throwin pass, the defender’s team will receive a team delay warning, or if the team has already been warned for one of the four delay situations, this action would result in a team technical foul. If the defender contacts the ball after breaking the boundary plane, it is a player technical foul and a team delay warning will be recorded. If the defender breaks the boundary plane, and fouls the inbounding player, it is an intentional personal foul, and a team delay warning will be recorded.

Bears In The Woods ...
 

These were not rhetorical questions. I would appreciate some responses.

Both questions (different situations) may not necessarily have the same answers.

And it's alright to post, "Don't know", or "Not sure", because that's where I'm at right now.

When facts aren't available, I'll settle for educated opinions.

I've been known to be polite to Forum members that I don't agree with. This is not a trap. I honestly don't know the correct answers. I don't bite.

Don't be shy. We're all colleagues here. We're all in this crazy basketball officiating boat together.

Unfortunately, there are times when the NFHS sends us up the creek without a paddle.

A little bit of help would be much appreciated.

What do your insider IAABO sources tell you? What does the rule say (I don't have access to HS rule books at the moment)?

Warning That Really Wasn't Given ...
 

Thanks Raymond. Apparently (based on quiz answers) IAABO wants us to "issue" a behavior warning after a bench technical foul with no previous warning to stress that a bench technical foul without a previous warning means that the bench has lost the privilege of getting a warning later in that game. I was wondering about NFHS rules and interpretations regarding the same. Does "issue a warning" really mean that the official instructs the scorekeeper to write a behavior warning, a warning that really wasn't given, down in the book?

Second situation was not an IAABO interpretation (it was my own curious question) but basically the same thing regarding and a plane boundary delay "warning" after the inbound play where the defender crosses the plane and slaps the ball (technical foul), or the inbounder (intentional foul), with no previous delay warning (of any type) such that the next delay (of any type) is a technical foul. Does an official really instruct the scorekeeper write a delay warning, a warning that really wasn't given, down in the book?

Are either, or both, of these warnings actually "issued", or are they just understood to exist?

According to Case Book 9.2.10 SITUATION A we do:

A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Team B has not been warned previously for a throw-in plane infraction.

B1 is charged with a technical foul and it also results in the official having a team warning recorded and reported to the head coach.

The second situation has been in the book for years and discussed quite often in the forums.

Again, for the first situation, what does the rule book say?

Team Warning Recorded ...
 

Thanks. Nice citation. Nevadaref, why are you posting under Mike Goodwin's username?

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

Rule 4 - Section 48 Warning For Coach/Team Conduct
A warning to a head coach/bench personnel for misconduct is an administrative procedure by an official, which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the head coach.
Art. 1 For conduct, such as that described in Rule 10-5, Articles 1 (a, b d, e, f), 2 and 4, the official must warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul must be assessed.
Note: A warning is not required prior to calling a technical foul.
Art. 2 For the first violation of Rule 10-6-1, the official must warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul must be assessed.
Note: A warning is not required prior to calling a technical foul.

2017-18 NFHS Basketball Rules Changes
4-48 New: Warning for Coach/Team Conduct
A warning to a coach/team for misconduct is an administrative procedure by an official, which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the Head Coach:
Art. 1 For conduct, such as that described in rule 10-5-1a,b,d,e,f; 10-5-2; 10-5-4 the official shall warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul shall be assessed. Note: A warning is not required prior to calling a technical foul.
Art. 2 For the first violation of rule 10-6-1, the official shall warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul shall be assessed. Note: A warning is not required prior to calling a technical foul.

2017-18 Basketball Comments on the Rules
New rule for officials to issue a warning (4-48-1 and 2): Officials may now issue a warning to the coach or the team bench. These warnings can be for conduct that is described in 10-5 or 10-6. If the offense is deemed to be major, the official may assess a technical foul in either situation. A warning is not required prior to assessing a technical foul. These warnings will be recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the head coach.

2017-18 Basketball Rules Interpretations
Situation 13: The head coach of Team A is upset that the foul count against his team is 7 to 2. He voices his opinion in an unsporting manner to the contest official. Ruling: The official should stop play if it is not a break situation with a potential scoring opportunity and give the coach an official warning by notifying the scorekeeper and then letting the coach know that he has been warned. The scorekeeper should make note of the warning in the scorebook. This situation does not have to be given a warning; the coach could be issued a technical immediately. (4-48)

Situation 14: During a live ball, the assistant coach is off the bench and out of the coaching box giving instructions to a player on the court. Ruling: The official should rule a technical on the assistant coach for being off the bench and out of the coaching box. (4-48)

Situation 15: During the second quarter, the head coach is off the bench expressing his disapproval of several calls made. As the team brings the ball down the floor into the frontcourt, the trail official stops play to issue a warning. Ruling: The official is correct in issuing a warning to the coach for the complaints. The scorekeeper is notified, as well as the coach, of the warning. Another warning cannot be given. (4-48)

Unless I'm missing something, no where does the NFHS state that a bench technical foul without a previous warning means that the bench has lost the privilege of getting a warning later in that game.

Is it because of this: For the first violation of Rule 10-6-1, the official must warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul must be assessed, and in my situation it would be a second violation?

But again, is there a need for the official to instruct the scorekeeper write a behavior warning, a warning that really wasn't given, down in the book, as stated on the IAABO quiz (to charge both a technical foul and to issue a behavior warning)?

Yes.

No idea on the specific IAABO requirement to write it down. Personally, if an official can't remember the coach has been Td, that's on the official. And, if the coach want to raise some stink about it not being written, it won't go very far. (Heck, I think there's some case where some delay warning isn't written, but it's still proper to T.O

I can't find anywhere where the book explicitly states anything like, "a technical foul assessed to a team under 10-5 before a warning is issued under 4-48, also counts as that team's warning."

However, I can draw that conclusion from the wording in the ruling from Case Book 10.5.1 Situation A (page 84).


Play: At halftime, as the teams, coaches and officials are making their way through a hallway to the dressing room, a Team A member inappropriately addresses one of the officials.

Ruling: The official must decide if the offense is major. Under 4-48, if not deemed to be major and neither a warning nor technical has been charged (direct or indirect) to the head coach, the bench personnel could be issued a warning. If a warning is issued, this would be reported to both teams, recorded in the scorebook, and the head coach would not lose coaching-box privileges. If the offense was judged to be major or a warning or technical has already been issued to the head coach, a technical foul is charged to the team member and is also charged indirectly to the head coach resulting in the loss of coaching-box privileges.

Stay In Their Lane ...
 

Agree. I thought that the IAABO quiz answer was kind of odd, which is why I presented it to the Forum.

IAABO is a great training organization, and I'm proud to be a forty year member, but they should stay in their educational lane and leave rule interpretations up to the NFHS, as James Naismith, and God, intended.

Note: Remember the lane rebounder crosses the free throw line before the ball hits fiasco when the NFHS changed hit to release a few years ago and IAABO jumped the gun by a full year with their own interpretation.

Cooking With Gas ...
 

Agree, and I've spent all day looking.

This takes care of part of the issue (no behavior warning after first behavior violation (warning or technical foul)): For the first violation of Rule 10-6-1, the official must warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul must be assessed. It only states "first violation", not second violation.

IAABO quiz states to also "issue the warning" after a technical foul for the first behavior "violation". Would like to understand the basis for their ruling, if there is one, or maybe they're wrong.

If it was major OR a T or warning was previously issued...

So, if a T was previously issued, there's no need for a warning. So, the first T serves as a warning.

Two For The Price Of One ...
 

Thanks for your time, effort, and input.

IAABO quiz states to do both for one event, the technical foul and a warning.

Would like to understand the basis for their ruling, if there is one, or maybe they're wrong.

Late Delete ...
 

Deleted "major' comet after you spotted it. My post didn't make sense to me (neither did Mike Goodwin's try at a helpful interpretation). Sorry.

Mike did an excellent job of finding an applicable case play from which to draw our conclusion that the technical serves as a warning.

Nowhere does it mention formally writing something in the book for a warning if a technical has already been issued. So now it's time to turn your attention to the IAABO folks to explain their answer.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No, the greater penalty (technical foul) has already been issued. This is the same as the indirect technical foul assessed to a head coach for a team member's infraction (Class B under NCAAM rules) not carrying its own penalty because the penalty for the team member's technical foul is already being enforced. Does the head coach have to sit, in NFHS rules? Yes. Do we record the loss of coaching box, and tell the coach that he has been charged with an indirect technical foul? No. The non-calling official on the tableside will remind the head coach that he has lost the coaching box, but nothing else will be enforced against the head coach. Usually, in NCAAM rules, a Class B technical foul carries a one-shot penalty, but because free throws are already being assessed for the team member's Class B (or A) technical foul, the offending team is not put into double jeopardy. For the same reason, even though we know that the offending team is no longer entitled to a warning after a technical foul has been issued to someone on the bench, we do not formally record that, because reporting both the warning and the technical foul would be putting the head coach into double jeopardy by punishing him twice for the same action. AFAIK, this is not allowed.

This play ruling from the case book clarifies that once a technical foul has been issued to bench personnel no warning may thereafter be issued. The subsequent poor behavior is simply a technical foul. So to answer BillyMac’s question, yes, a team does lose the privilege of a behavior warning to bench personnel once a technical foul has been issued.

Casebook Play Helpful To Confirm Earlier Rule Citation ...
 

I never meant to imply that Mike Goodwin's casebook play was not helpful in confirming a rule citation (4-48-2 "first violation") that I had already posted earlier (Post #9), but that it wasn't helpful in dealing with the probable mistake of IAABO wanting an additional "issued warning".

Sorry Mike Goodwin. Thanks.

Intimidating ...
 

I will consider it.

I find the IAABO "Gang of Four" to be intimidating. It's not them, it's me.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.r...=0&w=300&h=300

Talked Me Into It ...
 

April 8, 2021

To IAABO Co-Coordinators of Interpreters

Regarding two NFHS quiz questions from the recent IAABO Inside the Lines bulletin:

1. B1 places both hands on Dribbler A1 and is charged with a hand checking foul. As the official is reporting the foul, the Team B head coach asks, “What did the B1 do?” The official replies, that B1 had two hands on A1. The head coach of Team B screams “That’s a terrible call!” The official should:
A. Call an unsporting technical foul on the head coach.
B. Ignore the Situation.
C. Issue a behavior warning on the head coach.
D. A & C.
Answer: 1. D-10-6-Penalty.

2. As A1 is cutting through the lane and yells “get your hands off of me!” Moments later, the assistant coach yells “Get their (expletive) hands off us!”
The official should:
A. Ignore the Assistant Coach.
B. Call a technical foul on the Assistant Coach.
C. Issue a behavior warning on the Assistant Coach.
D. B & C.
Answer: 2. D-10-6-Penalty

I fully understand and agree that once a bench technical foul has been issued to bench personnel that no warning may thereafter be issued and that any subsequent poor bench behavior is simply a bench technical foul, in other words, a team loses the privilege of a bench behavior warning to bench personnel once a bench technical foul has been issued.

Citations confirming this “lose the privilege of a behavior warning” ruling include:

4-48-2 Warning For Coach/Team Conduct
For the first violation of Rule 10-6-1, the official must warn the head coach unless the offense is judged to be major, in which case a technical foul must be assessed.

Case Book 10.5.1 Situation A. Play: At halftime, as the teams, coaches and officials are making their way through a hallway to the dressing room, a Team A member inappropriately addresses one of the officials. Ruling: The official must decide if the offense is major. Under 4-48, if not deemed to be major and neither a warning nor technical has been charged (direct or indirect) to the head coach, the bench personnel could be issued a warning. If a warning is issued, this would be reported to both teams, recorded in the scorebook, and the head coach would not lose coaching-box privileges. If the offense was judged to be major or a warning or technical has already been issued to the head coach, a technical foul is charged to the team member and is also charged indirectly to the head coach resulting in the loss of coaching-box privileges.

I have a problem with the quiz ruling to “issue a behavior warning” on the head coach/assistant coach (bench) in addition to the charged bench technical foul.

Does IAABO want us to "issue a behavior warning” after a bench technical foul with no previous bench behavior warning to stress that a bench technical foul without a previous bench behavior warning means that the team has lost the privilege of getting a bench behavior warning later in that game?

Does "issue a behavior warning" really mean that the official instructs the scorekeeper to write a bench behavior warning, a warning that really wasn't given, in the scorebook?

I would like to understand the basis for this "issue a behavior warning" in addition to the charged bench technical foul ruling.

Please cite any relevant NFHS rules, or interpretations, to help me understand this IAABO quiz ruling.

Thank you.

BillyMac

Ask, And It Shall Be Given You; Seek, And Ye Shall Find (Matthew 7:7) …
 

From IAABO Co-Coordinator of Interpreters:

Thanks for contacting us. We appreciate the time and effort you put into narrative below.

I edit those quizzes and meant to change those answers.

You are correct, Question #1 the answer should be A; In Question 2 the answer should be B

Officials do not need to issue an additional warning after assessing a technical foul.

I will get these answers corrected.

Thanks again for taking time to review the “Inside the Lines” and participating in the quizzes.

Full marks for a good response time; slight deduction for not editing the answers before publication.

Human Papillomavirus ...
 

NFHS has warts. IAABO has warts. BillyMac has warts. Fact of life. Nobody's perfect.

CaCO3 ...
 

If one is going to publish something that will go out to 15,000 IAABO officials, one would think that one should be sure that the information was 100% correct, possibly asking others to edit and double check the information.

Back when I was teaching middle school science, I was meticulous about double and triple checking lesson plans, handouts, lab instructions, tests (questions and answers), and quizzes (questions and answers). Even spelling errors. Middle school kids just love catching teachers making mistakes.

"Hey Mr. BillyMac, CaCO2 isn't the formula for calcium carbonate."