ouch...talk about losing your cool...

[Mark Dexter]

From the AD: "DeRenzo pointed out that three ejections and three technical fouls is the most that can be dished out on one whistle, according to his interpretation of the PIAA basketball rules."

As soon as I read this, I questioned the accuracy of the rest of the AD's claim.

As JR pointed out, if 6 people come off the bench and all participate in the melee, I have 12 free throws for the other team.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

From the AD: "DeRenzo pointed out that three ejections and three technical fouls is the most that can be dished out on one whistle, according to his interpretation of the PIAA basketball rules."

As soon as I read this, I questioned the accuracy of the rest of the AD's claim.

It's the modern-day equivalent of "three on a match."

[Ref in PA]

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter

From the AD: "DeRenzo pointed out that three ejections and three technical fouls is the most that can be dished out on one whistle, according to his interpretation of the PIAA basketball rules."

As soon as I read this, I questioned the accuracy of the rest of the AD's claim.

As JR pointed out, if 6 people come off the bench and all participate in the melee, I have 12 free throws for the other team.

I have never heard of a max in my 11 years of officiating. I have seen the PIAA cave and not enforce the rules. A few years ago a fight broke out in the State Championship game which left 3 players from one team and 4 from the other as non participants in the fight. The refs wanted to continue like that, but the PIAA overseer at the game overruled the officials and only one player was ejected - the star player for one of the teams. What happened was A1 was given a throw-in in front of B's bench. B6 kicked his leg up between the legs of A1 during the throw-in. Fight ensued. A1 was the only player ejected and the next year we got a policy to never administer a throw-in in front of an opposing team's bench.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Ref in PA

I have never heard of a max in my 11 years of officiating.

The only "max" is that if the players left the confines of the bench but did not participate in the fight, then each offender is charged with a flagrant foul and disqualified, but only one technical-foul penalty is administered regardless of the number. Also an indirect to the head coach.

If any person participates in the fight, then they are charged a flagrant technical each, plus one technical for any other bench personnel that leave the bench.

Does that make sense?

[Dan_ref]

Hold on. What about this from the article:

Tuesday morning, DeRenzo received a phone call from the head official of Monday’s night game, and got a clarification on the error that was made.

So you PA guys...why would an official contact an AD to 'clarify' an error? And what might that error be?

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Hold on. What about this from the article:



So you PA guys...why would an official contact an AD to 'clarify' an error? And what might that error be?

The only "error" I can think of if he did in fact get a call from the head official is that they issued techs for each and every non-participant who left the bench which would be wrong per NF....I find this hard to believe that a crew of varsity officials would kick this rule as big as it is, but anything is possible...good question though, I can't ever envision contacting an AD directly, maybe my assignor would after discussing the issue with the referee on the game, but that's about it...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by kbilla

The only "error" I can think of if he did in fact get a call from the head official is that they issued techs for each and every non-participant who left the bench which would be wrong per NF....I find this hard to believe that a crew of varsity officials would kick this rule as big as it is, but anything is possible....

Say what?

By rule, they were supposed to issue flagrant technical fouls to everybody that left the bench, whether they participated in the fight or not. No matter, what, the 5 players and assistant coach were ejected for those flagrant technical fouls. The difference is in the penalties for the technical fouls for participants and non-participants. For non-participants, it's a max of 2 free throws. For participants, it's 2 free throws for everybody that participates and doesn't match up with someone on the other team.

Rule 10-6PENALTY SUMMARY8(b) 1&2 on p.67.

Iow, that can't be the supposed "error".

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Say what?

By rule, they were supposed to issue flagrant technical fouls to everybody that left the bench, whether they participated in the fight or not. No matter, what, the 5 players and assistant coach were ejected for those flagrant technical fouls. The difference is in the penalties for the technical fouls for participants and non-participants. For non-participants, it's a max of 2 free throws. For participants, it's 2 free throws for everybody that participates and doesn't match up with someone on the other team.

Rule 10-6PENALTY SUMMARY8(b) 1&2 on p.67.

Iow, that can't be the supposed "error".

You are correct, I meant to say that you don't SHOOT the techs for every non-participant, but you do issue the flagrant techs, sorry for the misstatement....so going back to OP, if the AD did in fact get a call from the R, if he admitted a mistake, that is the only mistake that I can think of, that they shot techs for every non-participant...

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Hold on. What about this from the article:



So you PA guys...why would an official contact an AD to 'clarify' an error? And what might that error be?

I wonder if the AD had called the assignor or league supervisor of officials that night after the game, and left a message. Then when that assignor or league supervisor called the AD back, that got interpreted as "the head official for the game". Sounds like the reporter didn't really do a very good job of keeping all the facts straight. Didn't talk to both sides.

[refnrev]

So for the record... since we have had different posts stating differeing opinions... The correct procedure would have been how many ejections and how many shots?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by refnrev

So for the record... since we have had different posts stating differeing opinions... The correct procedure would have been how many ejections and how many shots?

Sounds like we don't know for sure, since we don't have all the facts.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I wonder if the AD had called the assignor or league supervisor of officials that night after the game, and left a message. Then when that assignor or league supervisor called the AD back, that got interpreted as "the head official for the game". Sounds like the reporter didn't really do a very good job of keeping all the facts straight. Didn't talk to both sides.

errr....OK...that could happen...

Or just maybe one of the officials called the AD like the article said.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

errr....OK...that could happen...

Or just maybe one of the officials called the AD like the article said.

Yea, could be. But from the way the story is worded, it seems possible that there's an alternate explanation. I know that here in Portland, the official that was on the game would NEVER be involved in that kind of phone call. But perhaps in PA things are different.

[Adam]

From the AD: "DeRenzo pointed out that three ejections and three technical fouls is the most that can be dished out on one whistle, according to his interpretation of the PIAA basketball rules."

This is what happens when some coaches and ADs try to interpret the rules all by themselves.