Team Tech?
 

There is a committee here in Georgia that develops a study guide test. It poses questions and gives a TRUE/FALSE ruling only. Sometimes, it is hard to understand their ruling. Look at this play and ruling:

A1 and A2 are sitting on the bench 2 minutes before game time with no jersey underneath their warmup. They both pull off their warmup and put their jersey on while in the bench area. The referee charges Team A with one TEAM technical and the coach is given an indirect.

Ruling: True

I looked in the summary and techs for removing jerseys are personal fouls? Right?

The intent of the rule is not to charge lots of technical fouls when the same infraction is committed by several teammates. In those cases where multiple infractions occur simultaneously, a single technical foul is charged to the team. Since the involved team members were bench personnel at the time of the violations, an indirect technical is also charged to the head coach.

This is similar to the situation where a team scores a late basket and 6 team members leave the bench to celebrate on the court prematurely. Same thing. Charge just one T.

Also see case book play 10.4.1SiTD.

Chuck,

Sounds like a stretch to me.

So, if one guy took off his jersey, it would be a personal tech and count toward one of his 5 fouls or 2 techs? But, if 2 or more take their's off, then it's only a Team tech? Not one of the 5 personals and not one of the 2 techs? Lessening the penalty for more infractions doesn't sound right.

Who said this is similar to 6 people celebrating instead of 6 people dunking? Where is this ruling posted?

Mulk

Ron, check out the verbiage in the ruling of case book play that I cited above....<i>"In a situation where similar multiple infractions occur at the same time, it is not the intent of the rules to penalize each individual infraction as a separate technical foul. One technical foul is charged to team A and it is also charged indirectly to the head coach...".</i>

Team fouls are counted towards the bonus too.

Chuck and JR,

i understand that same casebook play and its intent for a minor type offense. Even in that ruling the wording isvery specific in the wording "in this situation" Which means to me that you might not apply that casebook play to other multiple infraction type situations like 3 people leaving the bench during a fight. Or, 6 bench personnel calling you a MFer. And you wouldn't apply necessarily that ruling to multiple dunks before the game starts. So, somebody has to decide the seriousness of the infractions and address them with their own specific casebook play i.e. "in this situation". Right?

My only question is who made the jersey removal similar to bench personnal standing during a f. throw? Fed? IAABO? Guys like us?

Mulk,
You make a very good point. It is a huge difference to charge only a team technical foul vs two player technical fouls. If only 2 team members do this, then that doesn't sound like "multiple infractions" to me. I may well go with two player technical fouls. The referee gets to use judgment here. The NFHS interp published last season said that 12 team members did this, not 2. The ruling there was what Chuck and JR have told you. I'm not sure that it applies in this case, but I can't state exactly how many team members would mean a change from player techs to a team tech in such situations.

Nevada Ref,

I was only looking for very specific interpretation other than 10.4.1.D and you have provided it. Last year, uh?

But, YOUR point about the 2 infractions verses multiple is a very good
point.

thanks

The technical foul would be charged to the bench players and indirectly charged to the head coach. Rule 10 section 4 Article 1 (h) addresses this directly. It also says that the penalty is charged directly to the offender and indirectly charged to the head coach. Specifically implying that there would be multiple T's in this case. So if three players would do this, the coach would receive 3 indirects and be ejected.

I would be surprised if this would ever actually happen in a game.

Rule 10-4-1(h) doesn't address multiple similar infractions that occur at the same time. It addresses single infractions only. Apples and oranges iow. The NFHS has addressed multiple similar infractions through the case play already cited above and the NFHS ruling cited by Nevada that they posted on their web site last year.

If three players did it, it's one technical foul charged to the team and one indirect technical foul charged to the head coach.

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=28953

Mulk,
Check out this thread from two weeks ago. It is quite similar and in it I posted that NFHS Interp from last year.