Connecticut Player Technical Foul Sit A Tick Policy ...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just feel this could even hurt the team more so if you had to go 4 on 5 and if you have no timeouts to get the sub back in, then a team is really playing with their hand behind their back.

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.)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

Yeah. This was not addressed. I should have asked a question but the policy announcement caught us all by surprise so I wasn't prepared with a question.

Long meeting. The NFHS announced that these were the most significant rule changes they've had in one year in the last twenty-five years.

And after that we had to learn the brand new Connecticut shot clock guidelines.

My head was spinning.

I will ask my interpreter.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

Some examples for debate:
Defender reaching through the boundary plan and touching the ball during a throw-in.
Substitute entering the court without reporting to scorer.
Substitute entering the court without being beckoned by official.
Grasping either basket at any time except to prevent injury.
Purposely delay returning after legally being out of bounds (throwin).
Illegally contacting the backboard by placing a hand on it to gain an advantage.
Intentionally slapping the backboard while a try or tap is in flight.
Failing to immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a whistle sounds.
Free thrower fails to be in semicircle when official is ready to administer the free throw.
Dunking a dead ball.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Yeah. This was not addressed. I should have asked a question but the policy announcement caught us all by surprise so I wasn't prepared with a question. I will ask my interpreter.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I will ask my interpreter.

Got a response.

"All player technicals".

Keeps it simple and objective, rather than subjective.

[BillyMac]

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, some of our more sports minded coaches have already been doing this for decades.

Player mouths off to an official. Technical foul. Player is substituted for. Player has a little chat with the head coach, or an assistant coach. Player reports back in at the next whistle (or sometimes a longer "sit", or never reports back in).

[JRutledge]

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.)

I agree, but there are Ts that are not really unsporting in nature. So if you get certain Ts, it would be more punitive to make the player leave. I get it, they should know this stuff, but just seems a bit much. The T penalty is big enough and if they get a second one they are gone anyway.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I agree, but there are Ts that are not really unsporting in nature.

Seems that an over zealous defender accidently reaching through a boundary plane and accidently touching the ball during a throwin shouldn't be treated the same as a knucklehead player who disrespectfully addresses an official (using what's deemed to be non-flagrant language).

Sure, both are technical fouls (by rule) but does the over zealous defender also deserve to "sit a tick" to "rub it in his face"?

That being said, I'm glad that the CIAC decided to make it simple and objective, rather than subjective, thus all player technicals lead to "sitting a tick".

After all, a "pissed off" player failing to immediately pass the ball to the nearest official when a whistle sounds can be considered by some to be "kind of" unsporting, even though it's not listed by the NFHS specifically as an unsporting act.

[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.