Technical foul?

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Being outside the bench area is a team T under R10-1-4(the language is close enough, methinks).

I think that's stretching that one, JR. That T is for a team that refuses to sit at the bench to which it is assigned for the game. I don't feel real good about sticking a kid for that.

[walter]

Wait a minute. Are you guys saying that a player whose team has broken their huddle during a timeout and has returned to the floor is not allowed to stand on the playing floor near the other team's bench area? That player is legally entitled to that spot don't you think? And, how do you know he's eavesdropping? Can you read his mind or hear in his head? What rule says he can't stand there after his team has returned to the floor. In my opinion, the whole team can stand there if they want to. I'm sorry, I can't see any scenario, given those conditions, where I'm dropping the "T" bomb or even giving a warning.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Because the eavesdropping is unsportsmanlike? Or because it's a T to be outside the bench area during a TO?

Either, or is reason enough.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by walter
Wait a minute. Are you guys saying that a player whose team has broken their huddle during a timeout and has returned to the floor is not allowed to stand on the playing floor near the other team's bench area? That player is legally entitled to that spot don't you think? And, how do you know he's eavesdropping? Can you read his mind or hear in his head? What rule says he can't stand there after his team has returned to the floor. In my opinion, the whole team can stand there if they want to. I'm sorry, I can't see any scenario, given those conditions, where I'm dropping the "T" bomb or even giving a warning.

READ THE PLAY IN QUESTION! Is what you suggest found anywhere in that question?

We're answering a test question. The test question says nothing about what you suggest. We're simply answersing question #59.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by BktBallRef


READ THE PLAY IN QUESTION! Is what you suggest found anywhere in that question?

We're answering a test question. The test question says nothing about what you suggest. We're simply answersing question #59.

I think we understand that this is a test question, but if we are giving a T for this action, you have to ask where we should draw the line. If this is a T, I want to know what rules support giving a T for similar action.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

I think that's stretching that one, JR. That T is for a team that refuses to sit at the bench to which it is assigned for the game. I don't feel real good about sticking a kid for that.

Ask yourself this, Chuck........

Why would anyone make up a test question that doesn't really have a definitive answer?

I guessing a little, probably the same as the IAABO goober who made up this stoopid exam. I'm trying to come up with some kinda rules rationalization as to how best cover this third-world situation. If someone can come up with something better, hey, I'm sureashell willing to listen. If you don't think that T fits, that's fine with me.

Now, what's your answer to your test question? Complete with definitive rules citations, naturally.

PS- you know in real life I'd do exactly what you said you'd do- way back when. I'd shoo the nosy little sh*t back to his own bench.





[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 15th, 2005 at 05:38 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by walter
Wait a minute. Are you guys saying that a player whose team has broken their huddle during a timeout and has returned to the floor is not allowed to stand on the playing floor near the other team's bench area? That player is legally entitled to that spot don't you think? And, how do you know he's eavesdropping? Can you read his mind or hear in his head? What rule says he can't stand there after his team has returned to the floor. In my opinion, the whole team can stand there if they want to. I'm sorry, I can't see any scenario, given those conditions, where I'm dropping the "T" bomb or even giving a warning.

It's a test question. Please give YOUR answer, complete with rules citations to back it up.

Then we get to second-guess you.

I await your answer to this question.

[ChuckElias]

I gave my answer and the rules reason. The official is incorrect b/c there is no penalty provided for violating the rule about being in the bench area. Just get the kid back in the bench area.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I gave my answer and the rules reason. The official is incorrect b/c there is no penalty provided for violating the rule about being in the bench area. Just get the kid back in the bench area.

Cool.

Could be right.

When you get the answer to that exam question, lemme know what it is, and whether they gave a cite for it.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
I gave my answer and the rules reason. The official is incorrect b/c there is no penalty provided for violating the rule about being in the bench area. Just get the kid back in the bench area.

So you think a player should be allowed to stand in the other team's bench area during a timeout without penalty?

[assignmentmaker]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Either, or is reason enough.

Well said, BktBallRef. Now there's another situation where eavesdropping may be nasty but, myself, I haven't treated it as illegal.

When a player fouls out, and while the substitution is pending, players are not authorized to leave the court, so we see coaches huddle with the their teams near their bench areas, players staying on the floor (and no subs on the floor - sometimes they need a little cautioning about that).

One coach I know sends one of his players over to stand near the other team's faux-huddle. Nasty, but not illegal . . .

[BktBallRef]

Agreed, not illegal. But in this case, there's no requirement that a player be within his bench confines. He's entitled to be anywhere on the floor during this time.

But during a timeout, a team has a right to expect to hold their conference without the opponent being in a position to hear. The fact that the opponent is breaking the rule requiring him to be in his team box and is committing an unsporting act while doing it is all the justification needed. I too, would warn him to get away. But I believe the answer to the question is to assess the T. The rules allow for a T for unsporting behavior. I don't see how anyone could argue that this isn't unsporting behavior.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Oct 16th, 2005 at 12:48 AM]

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
So you think a player should be allowed to stand in the other team's bench area during a timeout without penalty?

No, I told you that he shouldn't be allowed to stand there. Get him back to his bench.

What if, 2 minutes into the game, you see a girl who is wearing earrings? You gonna T her? No. You're gonna make her take them out. Does that mean she should be allowed to play with them without a penalty? That's a silly question.

It's the same thing. Something that you're not allowed to do; but for which no penalty is prescribed. So you fix it and move on.

JMO.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by assignmentmaker
When a player fouls out, and while the substitution is pending. . .One coach I know sends one of his players over to stand near the other team's faux-huddle. Nasty, but not illegal . . .

I've also seen this during FTs. One coach will call his point guard over to talk and an opponent follows him to the sideline.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

No, I told you that he shouldn't be allowed to stand there. Get him back to his bench.

What if, 2 minutes into the game, you see a girl who is wearing earrings? You gonna T her? No. You're gonna make her take them out. Does that mean she should be allowed to play with them without a penalty? That's a silly question.

It's the same thing. Something that you're not allowed to do; but for which no penalty is prescribed. So you fix it and move on.

JMO.

Isn't this situation similar to the concerns the FED had when they issued a POE re: players going into their opponents end or running through the center circle during the pre-game?

That was POE #1 in the 2003/04 book, if you still have it.

Excerpts from that POE:
1) "A policy could be established confining teams to their own free-throw semi-circle for pre-game huddles or rituals..."
2) "Officials should be prepared to assess a technical foul to a team member/team demonstrating these unsporting acts. The specific inappropriate actions may be individually penalized or the entire team may be assessed one technical foul, if they collectively engage in any appropriate behavior(s). Since all team members are considered bench personnel before the game and during intermissions, the head coach would also be charged indirectly with the technical foul".

My Thoughts:
- The situation and concerns of that POE are very similar to the situation that we are discussing. There really is no difference between a "pre-game huddle" and an "in-game huddle". The big difference is that we already have rules in place (already cited) that definitively state that team members must stay in their bench area during time-outs.
- A technical foul is an appropriate response for an unsporting act that is similar to the concerns of the POE. The language of R10-1-4 is vague enough to support a team "T" and the language of R10-3-7 definitely will support a player "T". You could use R2-8-1 if you wanted to also.
- No matter what, the language of R10-3-7 or R2-8-1 allows an official to make his own determination as to what an "unsporting act" is, and also allows them to penalize their determination with a technical foul. Iow, if Tony says that it's an unsporting act, then it is an unsporting act.

I agree with you that the best way to handle this is just to shoo the little jerk back where he belongs. However, that isn't the point here. The point is that we're still trying to come up with some kind of a reasonable answer to a stoopid IAABO test question that really didn't have a reasonable or definitive answer in the first damn place.()

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 16th, 2005 at 09:31 AM]