I didn't say distance had anything to do with it, he is "responsible" for the kid at the end because he is responsible for everyone on his bench. The kid at the table is not considered to be on his bench anymore. You are correct that you aren't shooting 4 free throws, however if you charge this as an indirect to the coach, he loses his coaching box priveleges if you are in a state that uses the box. This can be a bigger penalty than the 2 free throws, it also counts towards his disqualification. These can turn out to be big penalties, so while it is simply who gets credit, make sure that credit is due...

I agree with what 10-2-2 says. But it is only talking about what penalties are to be assessed to the sub.

10-4 takes it farther and says that "The head coach is responsible for the conduct and behavior of substitutes, disqualified team members and all other bench personnel."

The penalty states "two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in. The foul is charged to the offender and also charged indirectly to the head coach."

If a coach is responsible for the conduct of subs (10-4) and a sub illegally enters the court, why wouldn't 10-4 apply?

My last try.

Rule 10-2-2 tells you what the penalty is.The penalty listed does <b>not</b> include an indirect T for the head coach. If the NFHS had wanted to give the head coach an indirect T, they would have put it in this penalty. It's that simple.

The more I look at this I really feel the rule book contradicts itself. On one hand it says on (p.76) that a substitute entering without being beckoned is only a T on the sub.

But the definition of bench personnel includes subs and in that case on p. 76 it says it should also be given as an indirect to the Coach.

Maybe the Fed. needs to look at this and clarify.

No, it wouldn't apply. 10-2-2 directly addresses the illegal substitution. If a rule directly addresses a situation that is the rule that supercedes all other rules. 10-4 does not mention an illegal substitution even indirectly, the substitutes 10-4 refers to are those that are on the bench not at the table.

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/pc-crash.gif

Good luck in your officiating career.

Dubby, you're wrong. You've had 4 different posters tell you that you were wrong. No one else is posting and backing you up. No one else is disagreeing with what we've told you. Doesn't that tell you something?

The technical foul rules in Rule 10 are quite clear. Any situation is addressed by one rule, not two rules. 10-2-2 addresses a substitue who enters without being beckoned. You're attempting to add to the situation with a rule that doesn't apply.

If 10-2-2 was also an indirect on the coach, then the table would reflect that. That's the purpose of the table. It's an easy to understand tool used to quickly recognize what technical fouls result in an indirect on the head coach. This one DOESN'T.

Dubby, I feel your pain. Sometimes it seems as if the rules are an english test that can be inturpreted differently by different readers. And as you can see english was not my strong subject in school!

Dubby, if you'll take a look at the Virginia board that you posted on, you'll see that HOOPSREF agrees with this interpretation as well.

Perhaps. IF this is the first time this has happened to you, I understand your frustration. It won't be the last time.

I agree with the other posters.

First off, in 10-2-2 (case and rule book) it only says that a T is charged, it doesn't say who gets it.

Secondly, I'm definitely not arguing that you guys are wrong. I can see how you came up with your answers. I'm only arguing that the book contradicts itself.

You have players and you have bench personnel. If they're not one they are the other. The coach is responsible for all bench personnel.

In my state I have access to three rules clinicians who have debated this for a couple days. They are split 2-1 on what to do. Two believe it should also be an indirect, one thinks it's only on the player.

http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk...e/banghead.gif

The Technical Foul Summary table says it's a technical foul on the substitute. It does not say it's an indirect on the coach.

10-2-2 states a "A substitute shall not enter the court:" The Penalty states that it's a technical foul to do this. If it was an idirect on the head coach, it would say that it is, just like it does in EVERY other situation where an indirect is assessed. It doesn't have to say "This does not result in an indirect technical foul on the coach."

Again, we ask you, if what you say is true, then why is there a need for 10-2-2? 10-4-2 would cover it.

But it doesn't. 10-2-2 applies specifically to this situation. That's why there's a case play. That's why all the other situations that incude an indirect T on the head coach have it listed in the penalty section and in the Technical Foul Summary table.

:(

Dubby

Read this post again. The table is very clear. It is very specific about a substitute coming onto the floor without being beckoned. The substitute at the table is no longer Bench Personel. The reason a player who is replaced immediately becomes bench personel is because that is where he is headed, and he can\'t come into the game until the clock starts again, so he is going to the bench.