Inciting the Crowd

[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....

My question is whether or not to charge one tech total or one to each player.

If multiple tech's, the coach still gets one indirect. Right?

Thanks,
barryb

[Back In The Saddle]

One per team member who participates. However, unless you've had trouble with the coach or team up to this point, I'd be loathe to assign a penalty for this that would unload the HC without warning. If things had been going well to this point, I'd think about either a word with the coach (and let him have the first crack at dealing with the behavior), or perhaps I "wouldn't see" for sure who the miscreants were and go with a single technical (and let that serve as my only warning to the HC). If possible, I'd do the former; If the players were successful in inciting the crowd, I'd do the latter.

[Old School]

In HS, I would start with one T to the bench, Indirect to the coach. See if that doesn't clean the problem up. Usually it will. If not, give out individual techs to the players, which would be another Indirect to the coach because it's a bench technical. 3 bench technicals, by-by coach.

In NCAA, I believe you have to tag the player on the bench with a T. In the event you can't identify the player on the bench, then it is a bench technical, direct to the coach.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by our V.I.

In NCAA. . . In the event you can't identify the player on the bench, then it is a bench technical.

Guess again, V.I. Take a look at AR 209 of last year's book.

[dblref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Guess again, V.I. Take a look at AR 209 of last year's book.

Good one, Scrapper. It took a moment for the V.I. to register.

[Tio]

Herb Sendek of Arizona state was ejected by official Michael Reed this season for inciting undesirable crowd reaction in regard to a foul call made by the crew in a game against Washington. I think the video only captures the tail end following the ejection, but he received technical fouls 1 & 2 just prior for doing the same thing and then not stopping after tech. 1. I have included a link to some background info about the game.

I think this is proper application of the rule. The key here is that the coach has made a mockery of the game. Any time someone is out of line, it needs to be penalized.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38R9Ar_19FE

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...nglance02.html

[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?