I'm out. So, why not?

[mick]

Last night, in the JV game of a double-bubble, the 6-3 center had his 5th (shooting foul) called for an AT&T slight touch by one of my partners.

The kid had been chatty all night.

He came to me complaining of a 3-second violation and I questioned/explained that the ball must be in the front court.

He came to me asking for an over-the-back and I questioned/explained to him that there has to be contact for a foul to be called.

I rotated from Center to Trail for the shots. Table said, "5!". I told his coach. A partner then told the player.

6-3 walks past me and maybe thinking that he and I had developed a rapport, he looks at me and said, "That was [S-word]!" I think he figgered that he was out of the game so why not?

I whacked him. Then, I went to his very controlled, very polite, very quiet coach and explained to him that he had just lost his coaching box. The coach sighed, looked around, moved 6-3 down to the far end of the bench and took 6-3's chair.

mick

[cmathews]

Originally posted by mick
Last night, in the JV game of a double-bubble, the 6-3 center had his 5th (shooting foul) called for an AT&T slight touch by one of my partners.

The kid had been chatty all night.

He came to me complaining of a 3-second violation and I questioned/explained that the ball must be in the front court.

He came to me asking for an over-the-back and I questioned/explained to him that there has to be contact for a foul to be called.

I rotated from Center to Trail for the shots. Table said, "5!". I told his coach. A partner then told the player.

6-3 walks past me and maybe thinking that he and I had developed a rapport, he looks at me and said, "That was [S-word]!" I think he figgered that he was out of the game so why not?

I whacked him. Then, I went to his very controlled, very polite, very quiet coach and explained to him that he had just lost his coaching box. The coach sighed, looked around, moved 6-3 down to the far end of the bench and took 6-3's chair.

mick

This is the exact reason I don't like the way the rule is now written. You had a perfectly good coach lose the box because one of his players ran his trap. I know that that is how the Fed wants it, but it illustrates the problem with it also.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by cmathews
[/B]

This is the exact reason I don't like the way the rule is now written. You had a perfectly good coach lose the box because one of his players ran his trap. I know that that is how the Fed wants it, but it illustrates the problem with it also.
[/B][/QUOTE]Can't agree at all with you on this one. Coaches are supposed to instill discipline in their players. If they can't control their players, they deserve to lose the box. They also deserve the indirect T that they're also getting for not doing their job. A "perfectly good coach' will simply make sure that his player doesn't pull that crap in the future, and not blame us for his problems.

[cmathews]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

This is the exact reason I don't like the way the rule is now written. You had a perfectly good coach lose the box because one of his players ran his trap. I know that that is how the Fed wants it, but it illustrates the problem with it also.
[/B]

Can't agree at all with you on this one. Coaches are supposed to instill discipline in their players. If they can't control their players, they deserve to lose the box. They also deserve the indirect T that they're also getting for not doing their job. A "perfectly good coach' will simply make sure that his player doesn't pull that crap in the future, and not blame us for his problems. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't disagree that the coach should instill discipline. If this is the reason for the rule, then why isn't it an inderect when Player A in the first quarter gets a T? It is inconsistant if this is the reason. It is an indirect because we make the kid Bench Personel as soon as the coach is notified. I liked it better when the kid got notified first, then the coach. Any of the emotion may have already been vented at this point. To be honest with you it hasn't even been an issue with me, never had it happen, but this is the exact scenario I didn't want to see when the rule came out.

[ChuckElias]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cmathews

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

This is the exact reason I don't like the way the rule is now written. You had a perfectly good coach lose the box because one of his players ran his trap. . .

why isn't it an inderect when Player A in the first quarter gets a T? It is inconsistant

Well, it's not inconsisant, b/c the kid is bench personnel not a player; but I agree with Chad that it's a bad rule. I would prefer to see the rule changed to read that the DQ'd player is not bench personnel until he's legally subbed for or until he has returned to the bench area. I agree that it makes no sense that a kid can curse after getting his 3rd foul, with no indirect on the coach; but if he curses after getting his 5th foul, we have to hit the coach too. Bad rule, IMO.

[TriggerMN]

Ah, when I saw that Mick said, "I'm out," in the header, I was thinking something completely different.

[mick]

Originally posted by TriggerMN
Ah, when I saw that Mick said, "I'm out," in the header, I was thinking something completely different.

Closets are uncomfortable.

[Hawks Coach]

I agree with the crowd that doesn't like the way the rule works. The player should be bench personnel when he is on the bench, not when he is still on the court waiting to be replaced. This is the only time that you have team members available but 4 players on the court as far as I know. Just seems inconsistent.

My recommendation would be that you "forget" that the player was bench personnel because he wasn't on the bench. If questioned later, claim you had a non-premeditated wardrobe malfunction that caused you to temporarily lose the bubble.

[Mregor]

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
My recommendation would be that you "forget" that the player was bench personnel because he wasn't on the bench. If questioned later, claim you had a non-premeditated wardrobe malfunction that caused you to temporarily lose the bubble.

Ahhh, the world is right again. I disagree.

Mregor

[Damian]

This is a rule change this year. A disqualified player is not the same as bench personel. Once the coach is notified, any action by that player results in a direct technical on the coach. NFHS...

[mick]

Originally posted by Damian
This is a rule change this year. A disqualified player is not the same as bench personel. Once the coach is notified, any action by that player results in a direct technical on the coach. NFHS...

No. Incorrect response.
Please re-enter data.

[cmathews]

Originally posted by Damian
This is a rule change this year. A disqualified player is not the same as bench personel. Once the coach is notified, any action by that player results in a direct technical on the coach. NFHS...

Damian, are you thinking of the provision added this year that if a DQ'd player participates in the game it is a direct to the head coach??