Connecticut Player Technical Foul Sit A Tick Policy ...

[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.