Rush Onto The Court ...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

A6 and A7 are team members. Therefore, their entry onto the court can be considered illegal substitution. If assistant coaches illegally entered the court, their actions would fall under the bench personnel rules, they would each be charged a technical foul, and the head coach would receive two indirect technical fouls. B would shoot 4 free throws and get possession.

That is not correct for several reasons.

These team members were not entering the court with the intent of becoming players as would be the case for an illegal substitution.

Substitution occur at specific points in the game. If it is not a point where a substitution could legally occur, the players coming onto the court can't violation the substitution rule. Those 2 articles cover a player coming out of a timeout/intermission without reporting the substitution to a scorer or a player sitting at the table when a whistle blows that enters the court without being beckoned...that is it.

Substitution infractions are a technical on the substitute and not an indirect on the coach...largely because their actions are not really under the control of the coach.

These are team members, and just like other bench personnel, can't just run onto the court during play. Team members that enter the court without permission are covered under bench personnel and lead to an indirect on the coach.

These are not players creating a situation with more than 5 participating...they're not players...they're bench personnel.

The proper penalty is for bench personnel entering the court. They don't want us calling 10 T's if 10 team members enter the court in a situation like this and ejecting the coach, just 1 on the team and 1 indirect to the coach (unless the coach was an offender).

[bob jenkins]

This is from NCAAW -- note the under NCAAW, the rule is only enforced if the actions interfere with play; in NFHS, it's enforced regardless:

A.R. 339. Team B leads, 67-66� A1’s two-point try for goal is successful, but
there is no indication that time has expired� Assuming that the successful try is
a game-ending and winning goal:
(1) Bench personnel from Team A; or
(2) Fans from Team A go onto the playing court to celebrate�
RULING: When the celebration causes a delay by preventing the ball
from being promptly made live or prevents continuous play:
(1) One bench technical foul shall be assessed to the offending team
and counts toward the team-foul total. This technical foul is also
charged indirectly to the head coach and counts toward the coach’s
ejection. Any Team B member shall attempt two free throws and play
shall resume with a throw-in by Team B at a designated spot at the
division line opposite the scorers' table.
(2) An administrative technical foul shall be assessed to the offending
team. This administrative technical foul does not apply to the team-
foul total. Any Team B member shall attempt the two free throws and
play shall resume at the point of interruption.
When the celebration does not delay or interfere with play, the
celebration shall be ignored.
(Rules 10-12.2.h.4 and Penalty and 10-12.4.g and Penalty)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

NCAAW ... A.R. 339. Team B leads, 67-66. A1’s two-point try for goal is successful, but there is no indication that time has expired. Assuming that the successful try is a game-ending and winning goal: Bench personnel from Team A go onto the playing court to celebrate; RULING: When the celebration causes a delay by preventing the ball from being promptly made live or prevents continuous play: One bench technical foul shall be assessed to the offending team and counts toward the team-foul total. This technical foul is also charged indirectly to the head coach and counts toward the coach’s ejection. Any Team B member shall attempt two free throws and play shall resume with a throw-in by Team B at a designated spot at the division line opposite the scorers' table. When the celebration does not delay or interfere with play, the celebration shall be ignored.

If this can be extrapolated to a NFHS high school game, it sounds more like a 10-5-2 Bench Technical (bench personnel must not enter the court unless by permission of an official, penalty includes an indirect technical foul to the head coach) than a 10-2-2 Team Technical (more than five participating, penalty does not include an indirect technical foul to the head coach).

I don't yet have the IAABO Refresher Exam answer sheet, but the reference citation sheet given to study group members by IAABO points to 10-2-2 Team Technical.

IAABO Refresher Exams are always based on NFHS rules and interpretations. I wonder if this is an IAABO error? It happens almost every year.

bob jenkins (and other Forum members): How would you rule in a NFHS (not IAABO) high school game? 10-5-2 Bench Technical or 10-2-2 Team Technical?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

61) With Team B leading 51 to 50, Team A scores with eight seconds left in the game. A-6 and A-7 rush onto the court to congratulate the shooter. This occurs while B-1 is trying to complete a throw-in to B-2. The official rules one technical foul against Team A, awards Team B two free throws and the ball for a division-line throw-in. Is this correct?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Another problem question from the 2022-23 IAABO Refresher Exam:

61) With Team B leading 51 to 50, Team A scores with eight seconds left in the game. A-6 and A-7 rush onto the court to congratulate the shooter. This occurs while B-1 is trying to complete a throw-in to B-2. The official rules one technical foul against Team A, awards Team B two free throws and the ball for a division-line throw-in. Is this correct?

...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If this can be extrapolated to a NFHS high school game, it sounds more like a 10-5-2 Bench Technical (bench personnel must not enter the court unless by permission of an official, penalty includes an indirect technical foul to the head coach) than a 10-2-2 Team Technical (more than five participating, penalty does not include an indirect technical foul to the head coach).

I don't yet have the IAABO Refresher Exam answer sheet, but the reference citation sheet given to study group members by IAABO points to 10-2-2 Team Technical.

IAABO Refresher Exams are always based on NFHS rules and interpretations. I wonder if this is an IAABO error? It happens almost every year.

bob jenkins (and other Forum members): How would you rule in a NFHS (not IAABO) high school game? 10-5-2 Bench Technical or 10-2-2 Team Technical?

Hasn't the content and context of several responses (other than Ilya's) already answered your question?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Hasn't the content and context of several responses already answered your question?

It would have been helpful if Raymond had replied to my guess (with a question mark) of "six players on the court" to his cryptic post.

Originally Posted by Raymond

Put the 2 rules side-by-side. Then think back over your 40 years of officiating about which rule is something we as officials always try to prevent from being violated b/c we tend to blame ourselves when it happens.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Allowing six players on the court?

[Raymond]

My post wasn't cryptic. You asked a question (I think, hard to tell sometimes) and I posed a questioned in return that should have led to you making a determination which rule applies to the situation posed in the initial post.

I constantly preach to the officials in my association that we need to actually think about why we make decisions on the court. Spoon-feeding answers stunts that growth.

I train to help handle situations properly on the court, not to pass a quiz/test.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

My post wasn't cryptic. You asked a question and I posed a questioned in return that should have led to you making a determination which rule applies to the situation posed in the initial post.

I actually enjoyed and was challenged by your "questioning" post. And I wasn't upset that you didn't just simply give an answer.

My answer was that officials often try to avoid having six players on the court, and except in rare cases where players "dash" off the bench, if six players are discovered during a live ball on the court immediately after a timeout, intermission, or substitution, officials often have themselves to blame by rushing the administration of inbounds play.

Was that the answer that you expected from me, because you never replied to confirm or deny?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... how does one decide between a 10-5-2 Bench Technical or 10-2-2 Team Technical?

Originally Posted by Raymond

Hasn't the content and context of several responses already answered your question?

Originally Posted by Raymond

Put the 2 rules side-by-side. Then think back over your 40 years of officiating about which rule is something we as officials always try to prevent from being violated b/c we tend to blame ourselves when it happens.

If you accepted my answer, it implies that you support a 10-2-2 Team Technical penalty.

If you rejected my answer, that implies that you support a 10-5-2 Bench Technical penalty.

I already know that your don't support ilyazhito's 10-3 Substitute Technical penalty, and neither do I.