Double number change
 

I got this question from a coach. I did not work this game.
Player A1 had 4 fouls and player A2 has 1 foul at the end of the 1st half.
A1 and A2 switch jerseys at the half.

A1 and A2 enter the game to start the second half.
What do you have?

Certainly, technical foul on a1 and a2.

Do you T the coach?
Do you toss the coach?

A1 & A2 both get "T"s under R10-3-1. That's A1's fifth foul--> buh-bye.

If I <b>know</b> for sure that the coach told the players to switch numbers, I'd call a flagrant technical foul on the jerk. If I'm not sure, the head coach is still gonna get a direct "T" under R10-4. All players are bench personnel during the half, and the head coach is responsible for their behavior.

I agree with your penalties on the players, but wouldn't the head coach get 2 indirects?

Would both players be ejected for flagrants technicals regardless of how many player fouls they had accumulated?

A1 & A2 entered the game to start the second half. That's when the number switch was discovered. They're no longer bench personnel, they're players. The head coach no longer has the responsibility for their actions.

Judgment call. I agree that you can certainly make up a good justification for flagrant technical fouls against both players in this particular case.

I'm just trying to figure out the justification for giving the HC anything. If the 2 players did it during halftime, they are considered bench personnel, so I would think the HC would get 2 indirect as a result. If they are discovered during the game, then how do we give the HC a T? (Granted, if we know for sure the HC had anything to do with it, I can see T, perhaps flagrant.)

The penalty for "T"s called under R10-3 doesn't include an indirect "T" on a head coach. I wouldn't give out anything under R10-1-2 because that would only be <b>one</b> team technical foul charged, and that isn't penalty enough for what the l'il sh!ts tried to do. They both committed an unsporting act, and both should be punished equally.

The language at the front of 10-4 is good enough for me....."The head coach is responsible for the conduct and behavior of....all other bench personnel." No way I'm letting him skate. If he didn't know what his players were trying to do, then he should have. The only question imo is whether he's gonna get a flagrant "T" or simply a direct "T".

That's why I'm asking - if you use 10-4, then aren't you calling the players bench personnel? If so, then the HC gets 2 indirects, one for each of the players. If you give the players the T's based on 10-3, then I'm not sure I can justify giving the coach another, unless I know for sure they had any direct involvement in changing the jerseys.

You can't just 'T' teammates for changing shirts? Can you? They have to become a player to activate the rule.
I'll go look at the rules later tonight.

According to the original post, Zooch, the shirt-switch was discovered when the teammates entered the game at the start of the second half. That would make them "players".

The "bench personnel" did not commit their technical fouls during the half. Their technical fouls occurred when they entered the game and became players. No entry = no technical fouls.

If it will make you feel better(not that I really give a sh!t:D ), use R10-4-1 and say that the head coach committed an unsporting fall that falls into the open "includes but not limited to" category. Give him a regular ol' direct "T" just for being too damn stoopid to know what his players are doing. Or, if you feel sorry for him because you're a nice guy like that l'il Chuck fella that useta hang out here, then let him skate. It's a judgment call anyway on the head coach.

Remember.....contrary to what Old School preaches, the rules <b>can</b> be your friend!

Ahh...I feel better now. :D

I miss that little guy, wonder what ever happened to him.

Any truth to the rumor he got chased up a tree by a cat and starved to death?

The last I heard he was still living under a bridge up around Springfield, and working as a doorstop.