The benches are where they are because the alternative is to orient them some other way, which is inefficient. Elements like cost (as a function of the size of the gym) quickly rise when we want 10 feet of unobstructed space on one sideline. We all know that that will not happen.

The bench does not have arms or legs that will protrude to touch the ball before the ball touches it.

The bench cannot think and realize that if I touch the ball, my team will get it. (It would need a brain and at least one extremity.)

And if it could, the bench cannot respond to my technical foul call. (It would need a mouth, or if the one extremity it had was an arm with a hand and a finger, it could show me his middle finger.)

This is different because of intent.

WI State Tournament
 

Something very close to Mark's scenario occurred at the Wisconsin Boys State Tournament held at Madison a couple years ago. I don't recall the exact details, but a head coach interfered with a live ball (can't remember if he kicked or just grabbed it). I do believe he ended up receiving a T.

Hopefully some WI officials on this board may have a better recall of this.

Something very close to Mark's scenario occurred at the Wisconsin Boys State Tournament held at Madison a couple years ago. I don't recall the exact details, but a head coach interfered with a live ball (can't remember if he kicked or just grabbed it). I do believe he ended up receiving a T.

Hopefully some WI officials on this board may have a better recall of this.

It depends. ;)

The greater the likelihood of A getting to the ball, the greater the chance for the T.

The "more intentional" the act (or inaction -- intentionally remaining in the way) on the coach, the greater the likelihood for the T. (IOW, if he acts in instinct to catch a ball that's headed for his head, I'd likely not give a T; if he reaches to the side, I'd be more likely to do so.)

So, I could have:

1) A violation on A -- there was no chance to get the ball; the coach's actions didn't affect play

2) The ball back to A -- the coach's actions affected play, but were unintentional*

3) T on Coach B -- intentionally interfered with play.

* Take this similar, if unlikely, play: A 1 throws a baseball pass the length of the court toward A2. While the ball is in the air, one of the "climbing ropes" used for PE class comes loose and dangles over the court. The ball hits the rope. Sure, by rule, the ball hit an object OOB, so it should be a violation on A. But, since the oject wasn't there when the game started, couldn't be foreseen, etc., I'm just having a "do-over."

So then let us change this up a bit. Same situation, coach in same area, but this time the coach reaches out and tips the ball away from A right before they are going to grab it. You still have OOB on A?? That is not unsportsmanlike?? I'll have to remember that for our game tonight.

Although this won't really help most of us, the NBA addresses this specifically. From the Q & A, page 16:

Notice Team B is awarded the ball even tho B1 is the last player to touch the ball inbounds.

And before you make a blanket condemination of my post, why don't you address each of my points and give reasons why I am wrong.

[/B][/QUOTE]OK, you are wrong because you can't post any rules that will negate the language of R7-2-1 and R7-1-2(b), or that will specifically back up your contention that it's an automatic T. A generic "unsporting act" under R10-4-1 is strictly in the eye of the beholder- and not all beholders agree with you.

This type of play isn't covered in the rules. I can agree with others that I really don't like the idea of what the coach is doing in this sitch, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean that I have the right to ignore rules that are already present.

If this is an obvious (this means most others in the gym see it this way) deliberate act to grab the ball so it could not be played. I am going to hit him with unsporting T. Otherwise, B's ball.

Another option, just say A's ball. If asked, just reply, "I thought your player had the last touch." Then we move on.

This is the post that I most agree with.

I have some other thoughts on this situation:

Either A2 failed to catch the pass from his teammate or A1 threw a bad pass. Either way, team A is the team that caused the ball to be near the sideline in the first place. If they had executed properly, there would be no play to discuss.

Just because A2 appears to have a good chance to save the ball back inbounds, how can it be determined which team will retrieve the ball once he does?

The only thing I can't see in this situation is just to give the ball back to A. If the coach's action is unintentional, the ball is out of bounds on A, B's ball. If I judged that the coach acted intentionally to interfere with A2's play, T the coach.

I can live with this one.
Sorry coach, I may have kick the call.

The bench, like the coach, are OOB, regardless of how many moving parts, how much cognitive ability or what the intent of either is.

Because I don't see it as a deliberate act as originally posted. These things are almost always reflexive acts. And as you say by rule (except NBA apparently, thanks Chuck) the coach is innocent.

Is it possible that a coach might act in an overtly deliberate manner? Yeah. Would I rule differently if it were painfully obvious? Yeah. Do I ever expect to see such a thing...well...not really, but then until last summer I never expected to see a BI off a FT either.

Chuck:

Yes, this does help, because it establishes intent to interfere with the play. A coach who intentionally interferes with play is violating the coaching box rules and committing an unsportsmanlike technical foul. I did not think of looking at the NBA/WNBA rules myself, but if one compares the NFHS/NCAA, FIBA, and NBA/WNBA rules books, one will see that vast tracts of the rules are identical, word-for-word. Sometimes it does not look like the NBA/WNBA game is the same as the amateurs, but many times the rules and the intent are the same.

MTD, Sr.

Dan_ref:

I agree with you if the coach's action were a simple reflex action to a play that came up so quickly that he could not get out of the way. But if the coach has ample time to move out of the way of the play, but does not, and then interferes with the play, that is a technical foul on the coach.

MTD, Sr.

As a coach who also plays competitive golf I try to keep up on the rules of golf. I have always liked one of the rules they have which is the following:

1-4. Points Not Covered by Rules
If any point in dispute is not covered by the Rules, the decision should be made in accordance with equity.

I think sometimes in an effort strictly follow the rules we lose sight of the purpose. The officials and rules are there to make it a fair playing ground.

While I believe we should hold strictly to the rules in most situations. Sometimes if a situation is not covered I have no problem with an official simply using their judgement and doing whats fair.

In this sit. if the coach intentionally grabbed the ball but had his/her back to the player to save the ball and did not see them. I would simply give it to the other team.

If it was obvious that it was deliberately done to prevent the player from playing the ball. I have no problem with a technical.

I would like it decided in accordance with equity.