Connecticut Player Technical Foul Sit A Tick Policy ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The following policy has been approved by the CIAC Boys and Girls Basketball Committees. Beginning with the 2023-24 basketball season, a player that receives a technical foul will be directed to leave the game. The administration of this CIAC policy will be modeled after NFHS rule 3-3-4, which states in part that “… a player directed to leave the game shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has started properly following the player’s replacement.” In other words, a player that receives a technical foul must leave the game and cannot return until time has run off the clock. A coach will have the normal 15 seconds to replace the player who received the technical foul. If a technical occurs at the end of a game, there is no carryover to the next game.

We got an update clarification from our local interpreter today.

Only unsporting technical fouls.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

We got an update clarification from our local interpreter today. Only unsporting technical fouls.

Unsporting Technical Fouls
• Includes, but is not limited to disrespectfully
addressing or contacting an official, a player
gesturing in a manner that demonstrates
resentment, use of obscene gestures,
inappropriate language or profanity, baiting
or taunting an opponent (race, gender,
religion, ethnicity)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

So -- don't get a T. The team knows how many players it has and this should just be extra incentive to behave.

(I do think the policy should apply to behavior / unsporting T's and not for reaching through the boundary plan and touching the ball during a throw-in. I'm not trying to start a debate on which of the 10 or so sections under Player T should be included.)

Agree on the throw-in.

I think this rule may have the effect of making officials just not call technical fouls when warranted. We do have people that brag they haven't ever called a T or haven't done so in X years. All that tells me is some officials look for anyway they can to not call one and this just gives them one more reason.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I think this rule may have the effect of making officials just not call technical fouls when warranted. All that tells me is some officials look for anyway they can to not call one and this just gives them one more reason.

How about another reason?

Our assignment commissioner recently received a memo from the CIAC (Connecticut) that he shared with us.

Something about the tone of this memo makes me think that the CIAC wants us to be "real careful" about charging technical fouls and disqualifying and/or ejecting players (one game suspension) and/or coaches (two game suspension).

I really don't like something about the overall tone of this memo.

Please share this important information with your members and emphasize that an ejection should be the last resort. Preventative officiating works well. Since the player or coach will be suspended for the next game(s) in accordance with the CIAC Disqualification Rule, it is especially important to take all reasonable steps to be certain that the ejection is warranted.

It is a good practice to have a conference with your partner(s), if applicable, to discuss the ejection, before finalizing the call and to be certain of the identity of the ejected player or coach.

There are no appeals on ejections, once the officials leave the game site. Disqualification is a judgment call by an official and as such is not appealable. Until the officials leave the game site, they are in charge and may take any action deemed to be appropriate, even to the extent of reversing an earlier decision to eject a player or coach. Therefore, if the head coach and / or athletic director requests, in a courteous manner, to further discuss the ejection after the game, we suggest that officials entertain that discussion, since once the officials leave the site all decisions by the game officials are final.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Therefore, if the head coach and / or athletic director requests, in a courteous manner, to further discuss the ejection after the game, we suggest that officials entertain that discussion ...

Courteous athletic director in our locker room after the game?

Sure.

Ejected coach, or the coach of an ejected player, or any coach for that matter, winner, or loser, no matter how courteous, in our locker room after the game?

No way in hell.

No good has ever come from such a meeting.

I once had to literally break up a fist fight between a winning coach and a partner that started with, "Nice job guys", and ended quite poorly.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

Billy: did the CIAC happen to address what happens when a team only has five eligible players when a player TF is called? Will they play 4 vs. 5 until the clock properly runs?

Side note: this is similar to HS soccer, in that a player receiving a yellow card is instructed to leave the field until that team's next legal opportunity to substitute.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

While not addressing this issue specifically, the CIAC modeled this policy after NFHS rule 3-3-4, which states in part that “… a player directed to leave the game shall not re-enter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has started properly following the player’s replacement”. This leads me to believe that the CIAC would use any other relevant NFHS interpretations in regard to this rule.

Regarding the necessity of playing with five players if a team has five players eligible, it is my understanding that in cases where the fifth participant is on the bench waiting to "sit a tick" (and thus ineligible at the time) the "must have five players participating as long as it has that number available" rule overrides the "must not reenter before the next opportunity to substitute after the clock has been started properly following his replacement" rule. i.e. "must sit a tick".

Casebook Play 8.2 SITUATION B: A1 is fouled and will be shooting two free throws. After A1’s first free-throw attempt, B6 (Team B’s only remaining eligible substitute) replaces B2. A1’s second free-throw attempt is unsuccessful. During rebounding action for A1’s missed second free-throw attempt, and before the clock starts, A1 pushes B3 in the back causing B3 to roll an ankle. Team B is in the bonus. B3 is unable to immediately continue playing. Team B requests and is granted a time out in order to allow B3 to recover from the ankle injury so as to remain in the game. B3 is still not able to play after the time out has ended. RULING: B2 may return to the game and replace B3 and shoot B3’s free throw attempts despite having been replaced since he/she is the only available substitute. (3-3-4)

A former interpreter of ours simply stated it as, "Five trumps sit a tick."

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Billy:

You forgot to cite the author of CB Play 8.2B's RULING, 😉. This Case Book Play has been in the NFHS Case Book since 2008-09.

MTD, Sr.

For those who do not know: I have a deep dark officiating secret. I officiating boys'/girls' H.S. soccer from 1993 to 2005. Oh the shame of officiating the un-American sport, 🤣!

The reasoning behind the Rule was to give the Player's HC a chance to have his/her Player "cool down" but more often than not the Player's HC would not have his/her Player even come to the Team Bench, instead, having his/her Player remain at the Scorer/Timer Table to re-enter the game at the Team's next opportunity to substitute, which in many cases was ten seconds or less from the time the Player received his/her Yellow Card. I remember, very well, I Yellow Carded a Player who remained out of the game for less ten seconds only to come back and immediately go after his opponent again and do the exact same thing for his second Yellow Card which became and immediate Yellow/Red Card ejection, so much for a HC doing his job.


Mike:

Do you find that to be the case with some HCs not embracing the reasoning behind the Soccer Rule?

MTD, Sr.


Billy:

While my CB Play 8.2 Sit. B is an extremely rare situation, I also believe that the CIAC Player TF Rule creating such a situation such as in CB Play 8.2 Sit. B will be an every rarer situation. The real problem will be if Basketball HCs will be the same as some Soccer HCs and not embrace the reasoning behind the Rule.

Has the CIAC State Rules Interpreter or the IAABO Connecticut State Rules Interpreter officially ruled on this Situation?

How well do you know Dave Grossman, the Director of Officials for the CIAC Girls' Tournament? He and I back 30 years.

MTD, Sr.

[Mike Goodwin]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

For those who do not know: I have a deep dark officiating secret. I officiating boys'/girls' H.S. soccer from 1993 to 2005. Oh the shame of officiating the un-American sport, 🤣!

The reasoning behind the Rule was to give the Player's HC a chance to have his/her Player "cool down" but more often than not the Player's HC would not have his/her Player even come to the Team Bench, instead, having his/her Player remain at the Scorer/Timer Table to re-enter the game at the Team's next opportunity to substitute, which in many cases was ten seconds or less from the time the Player received his/her Yellow Card. I remember, very well, I Yellow Carded a Player who remained out of the game for less ten seconds only to come back and immediately go after his opponent again and do the exact same thing for his second Yellow Card which became and immediate Yellow/Red Card ejection, so much for a HC doing his job.


Mike:

Do you find that to be the case with some HCs not embracing the reasoning behind the Soccer Rule?

MTD, Sr.

Mark,

I've always noticed an appreciable interval between a player being instructed to leave the field after being cautioned and entering the substitution area, but none quite as short as your experience. I have beckoned several players back into the game at the next opportunity.

Contrast this with USSF rules. My son cautioned a U11 player for Stopping a Promising Attack. Under USSF rules, a player may remain on the pitch following a yellow card. A few minutes later, the same player committed another foul and was issued another caution for Reckless Play and was sent off for 2 yellow cards (we show cards sequentially now, rather than together as back in your day).

The coach missed the opportunity to talk with his player and that led to his eventual send off. He's also the one who parks on the grass near the sign that says, "no parking on the grass," but I digress.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Mike Goodwin

Mark,

I've always noticed an appreciable interval between a player being instructed to leave the field after being cautioned and entering the substitution area, but none quite as short as your experience. I have beckoned several players back into the game at the next opportunity.

Contrast this with USSF rules. My son cautioned a U11 player for Stopping a Promising Attack. Under USSF rules, a player may remain on the pitch following a yellow card. A few minutes later, the same player committed another foul and was issued another caution for Reckless Play and was sent off for 2 yellow cards (we show cards sequentially now, rather than together as back in your day).

The coach missed the opportunity to talk with his player and that led to his eventual send off. He's also the one who parks on the grass near the sign that says, "no parking on the grass," but I digress.

Mike:

I whole heartedly endorse the concept of having to leave the game but I think that basketball (and soccer) should model it after hockey and the Player should sit for 2:00 of Game Clock time for TFs and IPFs but the team should not be made to play short-handed. The Player should be put in Time-Out so-to-speak.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I whole heartedly endorse the concept of having to leave the game but I think that basketball (and soccer) should model it after hockey and the Player should sit for 2:00 of Game Clock time for TFs and IPFs but the team should not be made to play short-handed. The Player should be put in Time-Out so-to-speak.

Used the new Connecticut Technical Sit A Tick Policy for the first time yesterday.

This kid got an oral warning from me before I later served him some tea.

Later discovered that my partner had also orally warned him.

Coach kept the kid out longer than the next whistle.

No problem after that.

First technical on a player in a few years (not proud, just a fact).

No profanity, kid just "pissed me off".

10-4-6-A: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as: Disrespectfully addressing or contacting an official or gesturing in such a manner as to indicate resentment.