We had a state rules clinic about a month ago in which the instructor stated that if a player receives his/her 5th foul and is disqualified any subsequent technical the DQ'd player receives between the time the coach is notified and the DQ'd player sits on the bench is also a DIRECT technical on the coach.

An official attending the clinic asked the instructor to clarify because he (we all) thought the instructor had made a mistake. To make a long story short, the instructor stated that this is the "intrepretation" of the state association, TASO, and this is the way TASO wanted the situation called.

Since then, I've discussed the "interpretation" with other officials and we pretty much thought TASO was out of their minds. Also, because of you guys (and gals) on this discussion board, I went back and re-read the applicable rule and case book references (Case Book 2.8.4 Disqualification Procedure). Actually, the COMMENT was the most interesting find. It leaves very little to "interpret" by TASO. It reads, "Once the coach is notified, the disqualified player becomes bench personnel and any subsequent technical foul on that disqualified player is also charged indirectly to the head coach."

Anyone else out there had this discussion? Would love some of your usual insight and guidance. Thanks everyone.

[I edited out 1 paragraph which referred to NCAA Appendix V & Disqualified Player after I realized it did not apply.]


[Edited by rpirtle on Nov 9th, 2003 at 07:30 PM]

There are two different scenarios here. Scenario 1: A1 commits his 5th personal foul. The official notifies Coach A that A1 is DQ'd. A1 then curses at the official.

Scenario 2: A1 has been DQ'd with 5 minutes remaining in the game. With 2 minutes left in the game, A1 reports to the table and is beckoned into the game.

In #1, the T is charged directly to A1 and indirectly to Coach A, since A1 is considered bench personnel. However, in #2, the rules committee felt that this was unsportsmanlike conduct by the Coach for sending the player back into the game, rather than unsporting conduct by A1 himself. Therefore, they concluded that the direct T should go to the Coach, rather than to the player.

So in #1 you have a direct T on A1 and an indirect on the Coach. In #2 you have a direct T on the Coach, rather than the player.

If TASO interprets it differently, I don't think they have a leg to stand on, from a rules perspective. JMO

This is referring to a DQ'ed player re-entering the game abnd participating.

Isn't it required that the PLAYER also be notified of his DQ before he becomes bench personnel?

Rich

Taso interpretation is correct
 

I was at the TASO state meeting and this is how it has been presented.

The rule originally referred to a disqualified player entering the game. The coach has been informed and should not be sending him in. T on the coach.

However, the rules are very specific that a player becomes disqualified when the coach is informed, not the player. So, in the first scenario when the player mouths off to the ref after the coach has been informed, direct T on the coach. Not the player.

We have been informing our coaches about this and instructing them to keep control of their players.

Re: Taso interpretation is correct
 

I have to disagree. Once the coach is notified any technical foul on the player is treated the same as if anyone on the bench, waterboy, trainer or assistant coach says something deserving of a T. It is not directly on the coach.

Re: Taso interpretation is NOT correct
 

Tommy beat me to this one. This is simply incorrect, Damian. When the DQ'd player becomes bench personnel, his comments and actions are treated exactly the same as if the comments or actions were made by the assistant coach. If the assistant curses at you, do you give the T to the head coach? Uh-uh. You T the assistant and give the indirect to the head coach.

Your scenario is no different. The DQ'd player is bench personnel. Therefore, any unsporting comments are charged directly to him and indirectly to the head coach. Read 10-4 PENALTY and especially case 2-8-4 COMMENT.

If TASO really interprets the situaton the way you describe, they are absolutely incorrect.

In a word: no.

The player is supposed to be informed, but he becomes bench personnel when the coach is informed of the DQ.

Chuck:

Thanks. Once I got home an had my books I looked up the relevant passage. 4-14-2 (NFHS), plain as day.

Rich