heres one really tough one

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

You do have a evil streak in you, I like that

Let him talk to his players, just make sure they are all outside the FT restrictions area.

And that he is seated while speaking with them.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ca_rumperee

Me: "Coach, I'm telling you what I need from you and your players."
Coach: "I don't think you are right, I'm not giving it to you"
Me: Whack.

Ironically, since we would be clearing the lane to shoot the original FT's, he could have his players over for a chat.... if he can keep his focus!

But, riddle me this... If I now clear the lane for the original two shots, plus the technical foul shots.... the players need to be at mid court. If we are in the first half, with offending coach at the end where the FT's are being attempted, he is cut off from his players, right? No way he can caucus with them..

That's not correct. They merely need to adhere to the restrictions for players NOT in marked lane spaces. There is no rule that requires them to be anywhere else.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by ca_rumperee

But, riddle me this... If I now clear the lane for the original two shots, plus the technical foul shots.... the players need to be at mid court. If we are in the first half, with offending coach at the end where the FT's are being attempted, he is cut off from his players, right? No way he can caucus with them..

A common misconception. The players need to be beyond the 3-point line and beyond the free throw line extended -- all the places they are allowed if they are not in a marked lane space.

[ca_rumperee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

A common misconception. The players need to be beyond the 3-point line and beyond the free throw line extended -- all the places they are allowed if they are not in a marked lane space.

... my edurcation continues!

So, while he is seated, coach could caucus with his players (who would need to be on the court above FT line extended and outside of 3-point line) during the 2 tries for the foul, and the 2 tries for the technical.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

Happened in a game I did about a month ago.

A1 drives to the lane and is fouled in the act of shooting. 2 shots coming up.

Defensive coach calls all 5 of his players to the bench for a chat -- their bench is opposite side of court where the foul shots will be shot. I am opposite side of bench and tell the coach he needs to leave 2 in the lane for the bottom 2 spots. Coach says no he doesn't. I repeat that he has to have the bottom 2 spaces occupied, to which he responds that on the first of 2 they dont have to the spots occupied. By now 4 kids are by bench and 1 is kind of wavering as to who to listen to, me or coach. Coach tells 5th kid to get to huddle and I tell the coach that he needs to send out 2 right now and he ignores me.

What do you do?

Here we go again with an inexperienced official who thinks that he is wonderful, but struggles to handle a simple situation which is clearly detailed in the case book. So sad.

Is this another NFHS ruling that you refuse to enforce because you personally don't like it? Perhaps you administered the FT and called a delayed violation on the defensive team. I can't see why you would be okay with a T here, but not for a player failing to return to the court after being legally OOB.

The only thing that is "really tough" here is to understand your thinking.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Here we go again with an inexperienced official who thinks that he is wonderful, but struggles to handle a simple situation which is clearly detailed in the case book. So sad.

Is this another NFHS ruling that you refuse to enforce because you personally don't like it? Perhaps you administered the FT and called a delayed violation on the defensive team. I can't see why you would be okay with a T here, but not for a player failing to return to the court after being legally OOB.

The only thing that is "really tough" here is to understand your thinking.

Psst...Nevada...see post #10.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Psst...Nevada...see post #10.

I read what he did. I'm just making the point that this is totally inconsistent with his opinion expressed in the other thread. It's sad, but he doesn't even see the conflict in how he operates.

I actually was surprised that he didn't agree with those "other officials" that he asked who said to just call a violation or give a delay warning. So why does he care what is supported by the rules book in this instance, but not in the other?

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Here we go again with an inexperienced official who thinks that he is wonderful, but struggles to handle a simple situation which is clearly detailed in the case book. So sad.

Is this another NFHS ruling that you refuse to enforce because you personally don't like it? Perhaps you administered the FT and called a delayed violation on the defensive team. I can't see why you would be okay with a T here, but not for a player failing to return to the court after being legally OOB.

The only thing that is "really tough" here is to understand your thinking.

Man, it sure would be funny, after that rant, if it turned out the only thing wrong here was Nevada's reading comprehension?