Player A1 reports to come into the game. Waits at the scorers table. Then enters the game without being beckoned while play is going on. A technical foul is called.

Is the technical foul charged to the player or is it a bench technical which is also an indirect technical on the head coach which also means that the coach loses the coaching box????

The foul is only charged to the player, not to the coach.

But aren't they considered bench personnel until beckoned onto the court? Therefore wouldn't the coach get an indirect?

No indirect T for the coach. Rule 10-2(2) plus Penalty.

I would assume that the philosophy is that the coach would have difficulty preventing the sub from entering when he's at the table and the coach is at the bench. For that reason, the coach shouldbn't be held responsibile for the actions of a sub who illegally enters the court.

...and if you can't really come to grips with 10-2 Penalty section...
Check out Page 76 in the back of this year's NFHS Rule book:
TECHNICAL-FOUL PENALTY SUMMARY

It shows no penalty to the Head Coach for your exact situation. Substitutes

RD

After looking at this a little closer, especially page 76, here is what I came up with:

Rule 4-34-3
"A sub becomes a player when he/she legally enters the court."

In this situation the player entered the game while the ball was alive and was not beckoned, therefore is still considered bench personnel under control of the head coach.

Page 76
Under 'Bench Personnel':
"enter court without permission"
Penalty Charged to:
Sub/Bench personnel, counts towards disqualification and team-foul count AND is charged as an INDIRECT to the head coach.

Dubby read just a little further there.... "if entry is not legal, the substitute becomes a player when the ball becomes live." since the sub entered during a live ball they became a player immediately. If they weren't a player there couldn't be a T for either illegal substitution or for the 6th player. Since A6 is a player, the T is not charged indirectly to the Coach.

First off it says 'when the ball becomes alive'. To me, that assumes that ball had to be dead at the time the player entered the court.

Secondly, it still doesn't address the situation of the sub not being beckoned onto the court.

The T would be for the illegal substitution, not having 6 on the court. If you were to keep reading 4-34-4 it also says "A player becomes bench personnel after his/her sub becomes a player". If that sub is now legal then whoever he's replacing would now be considered bench personnel. Either way, you can only have 5 legal players on the court. After that, whoever is left is considered bench personnel.

On page 76 under bench personnel it clearly says "entering without permission"....charged indirectly to the HC.

For some reason I can't edit my response.

The last post should have referenced 4-34-3.

Dubby, you're really reaching. There's an explicit rule to cover this play- R10-2-2&Penalty. No need to try and justify anything else by stringing together other rules that don't relate to this situation at all.

Dubby,
Don't make a habit of looking for a reason to give a T either indirectly or otherwise. The technical foul penalty summary clearly states Substitutes: entering court; no report; not beckoned. That covers the situation exactly. I think the bench personel they are referring to in entering the court are asst coaches trainers, or other subs that enter during a fight. The reason being the coach is in charge of his bench. When the kid goes to the table the coach is no longer in control of him so to speak. Since the coach isn't in control of him, you don't penalize the coach for his actions. This is one problem I see about telling the coach first about a DQ for a players 5th foul. Now the kid is bench personel and when you tell him if he pops off and gets whacked the HC also gets one even though he doesn't have the opportunity to cool the kid down first..IMHO... I do realize there are deeper issues if the kid pops off such as coaching in practice...

Sorry partner but you're wrong.

In your play, the substitute is at the scorer's table waiting to come into the game and enters unbeckoned. This is a direct technical foul on the player under 10-2-2. It is also found in the Technical Foul Summary table under Substitute. It is not an indirect on the coach. The table and rule are clear on that.

Also, 10.2.2 is your exact play.

10.2.2 SITUATION: During a live ball and with the clock running, substitute A6 enters the court.
RULING: A technical foul is charged if recognized by an official before the ball becomes live following the first dead ball.

Your reply is referring to any bench personnel who leave the bench and enters the floor. This is a direct technical foul on the player under 10-4-2. It is also found in the Technical Foul Summary table under Bench Personnel. It is an indirect on the coach, unless of course, the coach is the one entering the floor unbeckoned. Then it would be a direct T. This rule addresses ALL bench personnel, not just substitutes. 10-2-2 specifically addresses substitutes.

If I'm incorrect, please tell me in what situation you would use 10-2-2 and the ruling under Substitute in the table. If you're correct, why would even 10-2-2 exist?

I'm not 'looking' to give anyone a T. It's simply applying the rules. It's not as if the Coach gets a T and the player gets one. It's simply who gets credited with the penalty. We're not shooting four free throws.

If the bench has 3 assistants and then 10 kids, it doesn't mean the coach isn't repsonsible for the kid at the end of the bench because he is 'to far away'.

If they are not bench personnel, and they are not players, what are they?

Then please tell us why you refuse to apply rule 10-2-2?

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.