![]() |
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. <LI> He came to me complaining of a 3-second violation and I questioned/explained that the ball must be in the front court.<LI> 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 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
[/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. |
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. |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cmathews
Quote:
|
Ah, when I saw that Mick said, "I'm out," in the header, I was thinking something completely different. ;)
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
Mregor |
You mean direct T on the coach don't you
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...
|
Re: You mean direct T on the coach don't you
Quote:
No. Incorrect response. Please re-enter data. :) |
Re: You mean direct T on the coach don't you
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:29am. |