When to shoot T ???

[Coach Bill]

If he's considered 'bench personnel' at that point, does the technical foul still give him a personal/team foul?

[Adam]

Yes, just as it would if, during the game, one of the bench players swore at the officials. It's a technical directly on that player, and it counts towards total player fouls, player technical fouls, and team fouls for the half. It's also assessed indirectly to the head coach.

[Coach Bill]

But, a T on asst coach, scorekeeper, or head coach, etc.... does not count as team foul. Correct? Thanks!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

But, a T on asst coach, scorekeeper, or head coach, etc.... does not count as team foul. Correct? Thanks!

Not correct. In FED, all fouls count toward the team total (some say there's an exception for indirect T's -- but the original that also leads to the indirect is charged)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Gimlet25id

They need to know that there are consequences for their actions even after the quarter/game has ended.

We had a famous dead ball dunk here in Connecticut about thirty years ago. The facts are a little fuzzy in my mind, but I'll give it a try.

Small college game. Springfield at Southern Connecticut State College. Southern just barely wins. After the buzzer sounds to end the game, a Southern player dunks the ball in celebration. Official calls a technical foul. Springfield makes the foul shot(s), sending the game into overtime, which is finally won by Springfield.

Is there a moral to this story? At the buzzer, make eye contact with the table to make sure that everything is alright, and get out of the gym as soon as possible.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Refneck

I've had this exact situation and was uncomfortable telling the coach he had to sit the rest of the game. Easy, I know it's the rule. However, I don't think the intent of the seatbelt rule is to punish a coach who's player gets stuck during a moment in the game when they happen to be bench personnel. IMO, the seatbelt rule is designed to punish a coach who can't control his bench area. Seems very ticky-tack for me.

I'm always glad to have a reason to seatbelt a coach, ticky-tack or otherwise.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I'm always glad to have a reason to seatbelt a coach, ticky-tack or otherwise.

That's because you are so mean-spirited.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I'm always glad to have a reason to seatbelt a coach, ticky-tack or otherwise.

I hate it. If I was king, they'd have a 28 foot box all the way to the baseline.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I hate it. If I was king, they'd have a 28 foot box all the way to the baseline.

Personally, I don't think that the box size has ever been a problem. The problems always have been:
1) coaches out on the floor or at the table.
2) coaches trying to officiate instead of sticking to coaching.
3) officials who ignore coaches who are out on the floor, at the table or telling them how to do their job.

Jmo.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Personally, I don't think that the box size has ever been a problem. The problems always have been:
1) coaches out on the floor or at the table.
2) coaches trying to officiate instead of sticking to coaching.
3) officials who ignore coaches who are out on the floor, at the table or telling them how to do their job.

Jmo.

4) Gym "set up crews" who put the chairs all the way to the table instead of stopping (or starting, depending on from which end you count) at the 28' mark.

[Refneck]

Sorry, I didn't state in my earlier post that I did seat the coach, which he understood. My point was that it's one of those rule situations where the letter of the rule just doesn't feel right, that's all. I wish we could use the intent of rules more than just words on the page when that makes the most sense for the context of that game.

I guess I don't like being such a robot when I referee, others may find that easier, opinions vary.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Refneck

Sorry, I didn't state in my earlier post that I did seat the coach, which he understood. My point was that it's one of those rule situations where the letter of the rule just doesn't feel right, that's all. I wish we could use the intent of rules more than just words on the page when that makes the most sense for the context of that game.

I guess I don't like being such a robot when I referee, others may find that easier, opinions vary.

You are still missing the point. I'm trying to tell you that seat-belting the coach in these cases IS the intent of the NFHS. That body knew exactly what it was doing when it wrote the rulings. Those folks WANT the coach to lose the box. This makes coaches control their kids more throughout the game. You seem to be failing to comprehend that.

Here's yet another recent NFHS interp explicitly stating their intent:
2006-07 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 4: The horn sounds to end the third quarter. As the teams are heading to their respective benches, team members A1 and B1 verbally taunt one another. RULING: Double technical foul charged to A1 and B1. During the intermission between quarters, all team members are bench personnel. Both head coaches are indirectly charged with technical fouls and lose their coaching box privileges. Play will resume at the point of interruption, which is an alternating-possession arrow throw-in to begin the fourth quarter. (4-34-2; 10-4-1c Penalty)

[Refneck]

Fair enough...I appreciate the rule reference.

Why do they stop there? Why not seatbelt a coach for a technical by a "live" (non-bench) player? It's still the coach's job to control his kids, right? Maybe I would like it more if the outcome of a player technical had consistent coaching ramifications.