During a time-out,A-1 stands on the outer circle of team B's huddle listening in on the conversation. When it is brought to the official's attention.A-1 is charged with a technical foul. Is the official correct?


hmm..I wonder how it was brought to the ref's attention? Ref must've been snoozing if he needed help seeing that.

Is B within the bench area that A is not allowed in during the timeout. Has the timeout expired?

Who brought it to the Referees attention... becuase if I was that referee I'd give him my shirt and my whistle, because I was obviously not doing my job of watching the bench.

I agree. It depends where the team A players are located as well as where B is located. If B is standing on the playing floor, in my opinion, there is nothing illegal about what he did even if team A is seated on their bench. That being said, if team B is still at their bench and team B sends a player over to A's bench area just to listen while the rest of team B remains, I'm obviously not going to allow that to happen. If team B breaks their huddle or sends their five players back onto the floor to resume play and one of their players goes over there but is still on the floor, I say that's legal. I can't find anything in the rules that says that B can't do that.

I agree, it's all in the intent. If a player on purpose is moving over to the bench area when the rest of the team is standing in a circle in their area, if he is trying to hear what the team is saying it should show on him. If the time out is over and the layers are returning I wouldn't call it though,if a player were trying to listen to the others TO talk I would T him.

And if somebody else poitned this out to me, I'd give the whistle to somebody in the audiance :P

I disagree. I don't care about the intent, I care about the player's location. If A1 is standing in his bench area, then he's legal, even if that allows him to overhear Team B's huddle. It's like football huddles. The defense is allowed to be up to the line of scrimmage, I think. So they go right up to the line. If the offensive team is dumb enough to huddle close enough to the line so that they can be overheard, that's their problem.

If A1 is out of his bench area, then I'm shooing him back to his huddle. I don't think a T is warranted here.

Seeing this is an IAABO test, Mr. IAABO interpreter......

1)What rule are you gonna use to shoo A1 back to his huddle?
2)What is the correct answer to the original IAABO test question? Is the official correct to give A1 a T? If so, what rule sez that it's OK to nail A1 with the T?

Rules citations for <b>everything</b>, please. :)

Inquiring minds need to know.

I don't think there is one. And that's why I'm shooing instead of T'ing.

I don't have the answer sheet yet.

..this is question #69 from the IAABO Refresher Exam - 2005. I copied the question exactly as it is written so I have no further details.

What do you need the answer sheet for? You got the rule books, don't you?

Well, lemme put you out of your misery then.....:D


- from POE #4 in the 2003/04 rulebook- "Secondly, teams shall remain in their <b>bench area</b> DURING 60 and 30-second timeouts".
- R5-12-5- "The 60-second time-out conference with teammembers shall be conducted <b>within the confines of the bench area</b>".
- R1-13-3- "The bench area shall be the area inside an imaginary rectangle formed by the boundaries of the sideline (including the bench), end line, an an imaginary line extended from the free-throw lane line nearest the bench area meeting an imaginary line extended from the coaching box line".
- R10-1-4- "A team shall not fail to occupy the team member's bench to which it is assigned."

Put 'em together and wadddaya got? Bippity boppity boo....

And I ain't even an IAABO member.....

Another great exam question.... :rolleyes:

So you're saying the answer is. . .?

Yes, the official is correct.

Yes, BktBallRef is correct. :)

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

Well, the language I cited seems to support a T for being outa the bench area during a TO.

But......maybe you can also take your choice.

Being outside the bench area is a <b>team</b> T under R10-1-4(the language is close enough, methinks).

Or.....you can call it a player T under the generality of R10-3-7--"commit an unsporting foul".

Personally, I like the option that also gives the coach the indirect T and the seatbelt. It's fun putting that sad look on your face and saying "Gee, I'm <b>really, really</b> sorry, coach, but you're gonna haveta keep your a$$ on the bench for the rest of the game". :D

What are you guys going to do if the coach is breaks their team conference before the timeout is over? Are you going to T up every kid that is not in the bench area at this time? What if the kid is not even close to the other team's huddle and opposite the table? Are we just giving a T because the player is not in the bench area or are we giving a T because he is not in his bench area and overhearing the opponent's conversation?

Peace

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.

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.

Either, or is reason enough.

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

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 <b>your</b> answer to <b>your</b> 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]

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

Then we get to second-guess you.

I await your answer to this question.

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.

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

Well said, BktBallRef. Now there's another situation . . .
 

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 . . .

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]

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.

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.

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.

<u>Excerpts from that POE:</u>
1) <i>"A policy could be established confining teams to their own free-throw semi-circle for pre-game huddles or rituals..."</i>
2) <i>"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".</i>

<u>My Thoughts:</u>
- 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 <b>own</b> 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 <b>is</b> 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]

If you deem it to be unsportsmanlike, then whack him. Unsportsmanlike activity is always deserving of a T. But if the kid is just being a dope and leaning over, being a goofy teenager ("hey, look what I'm doing! har-har-har"), then get him back to his bench area.

I'm not saying that you can't T in this sitch. I'm saying that there is no rule support for a T simply for being out of the bench area.

Yes, you did. And I should have phrased my question, "So you don't think a player standing in the other team's bench area during a timeout is unsporting?

There are plenty of unsporting situations that the case book and the rule book don't specifically address with, "Assess a technical foul," but it's still done. Just seems very obvious to me that an opponent moving into an area where the opposing team is holding a timeout conference is unsporting. JMO.

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

Then we get to second-guess you.

I await your answer to this question. [/B][/QUOTE]

JR, maybe I didn't clarify my position well enough. I'm not second guessing how you would answer the test question. I'm curious as to how you would handle the situation I described in a real game sitch. For the sole purpose of answering the test question, the answer I would give is the official is correct. What I was asking is whether, in a real life game situation, after team B's players have returned to the floor following a granted timeout, with time remaining in the time out period, if B-1 stands on the playing court near the sideline next to Team A's bench, while Team A is still huddling, are you really going to make B-1 move, let alone "T" him? I know team A is entitled to the full allotment of time for the time out, but, in my opinion, B-1 is entitled to that spot on the floor. Just curious. By the way, I'm an IAABO member and I agree that the test questions that they come up with, and the HFHS come up with, are often times ridiculous. A member of my Board is on the NFHS rules committee and we have often brought this to his attention. His response is usually that, believe it or not, the questions are derived from real game situations brought to the attention of the NFHS by coaches and athletic directors.

JR, maybe I didn't clarify my position well enough. I'm not second guessing how you would answer the test question. I'm curious as to how you would handle the situation I described in a real game sitch. For the sole purpose of answering the test question, the answer I would give is the official is correct. What I was asking is whether, in a real life game situation, after team B's players have returned to the floor following a granted timeout, with time remaining in the time out period, if B-1 stands on the playing court near the sideline next to Team A's bench, while Team A is still huddling, are you really going to make B-1 move, let alone "T" him? I know team A is entitled to the full allotment of time for the time out, but, in my opinion, B-1 is entitled to that spot on the floor. Just curious. By the way, I'm an IAABO member and I agree that the test questions that they come up with, and the HFHS come up with, are often times ridiculous. A member of my Board is on the NFHS rules committee and we have often brought this to his attention. His response is usually that, believe it or not, the questions are derived from real game situations brought to the attention of the NFHS by coaches and athletic directors. [/B][/QUOTE]Walter, no you didn't clarify your original position well. You kinda intimated that I'd personally T the player up rather than possibly follow another tack. I responded as above because I never did say anything even close to that. I was just trying to figure out a reasonable answer to the original question. I think that I've already answered your question twice in other responses in this thread. Personally, I'd just shoo the kid back to his bench. I think that most officials would favor that option instead of bludgeoning the player with a T.

Btw, you can add Referee magazine to the list of reputable sources that have asked stoopid questions also. What bothers me <b>isn't</b> that IAABO or the FED are asking questions about situations that rarely occur. What bothers me is that IAABO is coming up with questions that are completely <b>unanswerable</b> imo. Iow, they're asking questions that do not have a definitive answer anywhere in the rules. Questions like that are a complete waste of time. The answer to these types of questions is just the <b>opinion</b> of the person that wrote the question. That's wrong- as well as being stoopid. Questions like that serve absolutely no purpose when it comes to testing an official's rules knowledge. I hope that clarifies my position too.

Now that's cynical!!

JR, well said.