Connecticut Player Technical Foul Sit A Tick Policy ...
 

Thought that you guys might be interested in our new Connecticut Player Technical Foul Sit A Tick Policy:

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.

Most interesting was the incorrect grammar, especially from an educational organization and when contrasted with the correct grammar used later in the same article.

My obsessive grammar pet peeve at work...LOL

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.

That is a great question. So many potholes this causes without likely being very well thought out. And I can see this being a regular issue at the lower levels where kids are not participating at the level they once did.

Maybe they should do like Indiana. Every technical foul has to be reported. Each school gets a certain amount of "points" to start the year and lose points for every technical foul or unsporting behavior that is reported. Apparently, the more you lose points you can lose hosting playoffs or even playing in the postseason. It is not as complicated as I am likely making it, but when you give a technical foul, the player or coach has to write something about how it will not happen again and in some cases, they send this to the official apologizing. It keeps things relatively in line. Not perfect, but does not have game-changing consequences beyond just getting a T that goes toward disqualification. But I give them credit for doing something that is punitive. 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.

Peace

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.)

Five Trumps Sit A Tick ...
 

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."

Up The Ladder ...
 

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, every ejection is mandated to be reported to our assignment commissioner who is then mandated to report such to the CIAC.

Every unsporting technical foul is mandated to be reported to our assignment commissioner who keeps a file. If the same team keeps getting unsporting technical fouls, he contacts the athletic director and/or school principal and in egregious cases he also reports such to the CIAC.

Surprise ...
 

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.

Unsporting ???
 

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.

All Player Technicals ...
 

Got a response.

"All player technicals".

Keeps it simple and objective, rather than subjective.

Don't Do That Again ...
 

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).

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

Same Old, Same Old ....
 

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.

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.