Inciting the Crowd

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by cropduster

After disagreeing with officail's call three players on A's bench stand up, turn their back to the floor, and attempt to incite the crowd to "boo". Ruling: Tech on A's bench, indirect to coach. B is awarded 2 FTs plus throw in acros....

Barry, where did you get this ruling? I can't find it in the current casebook or in last year's casebook under 10.4 or 10.5.

In such a situation, I would not say that a technical foul is charged to Team A's bench. I would assess a direct technical foul to each person on the bench and then also charge the head coach with three indirect technical fouls.

The only time we give a single penalty for multiple infractions is when the whole team (or some "large" number of them) commit the same infraction at the same time. For example, Team A is winning by 8 points with 5 seconds remaining in the game. A1 is fouled and will shoot bonus free throws. All the substitutes on Team A's bench run onto the floor in celebration, even though the game clock has not expired. In this case, only one technical foul for delay would be assessed.

So in your case, the question is "what is that 'large' number?". And I don't have a definitive answer for that. I think it probably means most of the team. So when it's "only" three team members, I'd probably give three direct T's (one to each sub) and three indirects to the head coach (which gets the coach booted).

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

In your case, however, I'd give two direct T's (one to each sub) and two indirects to the head coach.

Wasn't the original situation with 3 subs (assuming that's what was meant by players on the bench)?

In that case, I can't see any alternative but to assess each substitute a T, give the coach 3 indirect T's and give the coach the boot.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

Wasn't the original situation with 3 subs ?

Yes, I read it too quickly. I'll edit my reply.

[cropduster]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Barry, where did you get this ruling? I can't find it in the current casebook or in last year's casebook under 10.4 or 10.5.

It's in the Louisiana Study Guide for 06-07. Quite often the situations on it don't match any of the case book sits.

http://www.lhsaa.org/officials/manua...StudyGuide.doc

barryb

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by cropduster

It's in the Louisiana Study Guide for 06-07. Quite often the situations on it don't match any of the case book sits.

In that case, you might as well just take a guess, because the answer will be determined by somebody within your state, not the NFHS. I'd be interested to hear what they say is the correct answer when you find out.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by cropduster

It's in the Louisiana Study Guide for 06-07. Quite often the situations on it don't match any of the case book sits.

http://www.lhsaa.org/officials/manua...StudyGuide.doc

barryb

Just in doing a quick scan, there are a number of these that are incorrect. Is this a true-or-false-type study guide, where you are supposed to determine if the ruling given is correct? Or is the ruling supposed to be the correct answer?

[cropduster]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Just in doing a quick scan, there are a number of these that are incorrect. Is this a true-or-false-type study guide, where you are supposed to determine if the ruling given is correct? Or is the ruling supposed to be the correct answer?

Yes, it's True False. BTW with no legend.
barryb

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Barry, where did you get this ruling? I can't find it in the current casebook or in last year's casebook under 10.4 or 10.5.

Casebook play 10.4.1SitD.

Maybe? Is the language close enough to support BITS' idea of one bench T and 1 indirect T?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Casebook play 10.4.1SitD.

Maybe? Is the language close enough to support BITS' idea of one bench T and 1 indirect T?

I saw that too, but that that was addressing players standing while the clock is running. I would think an unsporting act, like specifically 10-4-1(f), should be dealt with a little harsher?

[Mark Dexter]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I saw that too, but that that was addressing players standing while the clock is running. I would think an unsporting act, like specifically 10-4-1(f), should be dealt with a little harsher?

I tend to agree.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Casebook play 10.4.1SitD.

Maybe? Is the language close enough to support BITS' idea of one bench T and 1 indirect T?

I was thinking that he was quoting a casebook play. I didn't realize it was part of an exam, so when I didn't find the exact play I wondered where it had come from.