Tossing a coach with no T's

[zebraman]

As the player (age 13) approached the team bench, his father grabbed him by the shoulders, picked his son up off of the floor and throw him onto the bench.

Mark,
IMHO, you did the right thing here. The only thing missing was that you forgot to enforce the flagrant technical foul on this coach! No reason to use the "elastic powers of the referee" here because his actions warranted a flagrant T.

Z

[Kelvin green]

IF I remember my NBA rules, and it it covered by the rules, the only wy a player or coach is ejected without a T is when they go into the stands after a fan. Otherwise it cant be done.

In NF/NCAA I will diagree about using the lastic clause unless it is very unusual. To eject a coach and not penalize the kids is not unusual enough for me.

I think the situation that Mark relates would be a good candidtae for invoking that rule. Just to get rid of an obnoxious coach wthout the T would not be right.

Personally that's why I like the NBA T rule. It does not penalize the players but it certainly gets rid of people who are out of place. ( A toatl ejection is 2 shots only)

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Historically, unsportsmanlike technical fouls have been interpreted to mean actions directed either toward an opponent or an official.

Since the AAU game that I wrote about was played using NFHS rules, lets look at the NFHS Rules concerning flagrant fouls and technical fouls by bench personnel, keeping in the historic interpretation of unsportsmanlike technical fouls.

R4-S19-A4: A flagrant foul may be a personal or technical foul of a violent or savage nature, or a technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable conduct. It may or may not be intentional. If personal, it involves, but is not limited to violent contact such as: striking, kicking and kneeing. If technical, it involves dead-ball contact or noncontact at any time which is extreme or persisten, vulgar or abusive conduct. Fighting is a flagrant act.

R10-S4: Bench personnel shall not:

A1: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is
not limited to, acts or conduct such as:

a. Disrespectfully addressing an official.

b. Attempting to influence an official's decision.

c. Using profane or inappropriate language or obscene
gestures.

d. Disprepectfully addressing, baiting or taunting an
opponent.
NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of an form of taunting
which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule
or demean others under any circumstances including on
the basis of race, religion, gender or national
origin.

e. Objecting to an official's decision by rising from
the bench or using gestures.

f. Inciting undesirable crowd reactions.

g. Team member(s) not remaining seated on the bench
unless spontaneously reacting to an outstanding play
by a member of their team and immediately returning
to their seats or reporting to the scorer's table.

h. Being charged with fighting.

A2: Enter the court unless by permission of an official to
attend an injured player.

A3: Use tobacco, or smokeless tobacco.

A4: Leave the confines of the bench during a fight.
NOTE: The head coach may enter the court only if
beckoned by an official.

A5: The head coach is responsible for the conduct and
behavior of substitutes, disqualified team members and
all other bench personnel.

What parts for Rules 4 and 10 above might be applied to the father's actions in my AAU game?

Rule 4:
1) Technical noncontact foul which displays unacceptable
behavior.

Was the father's behavior unacceptable? YES. Was it
directed toward an opponent or an official? NO. It
would be difficult for an official to charge a techni-
cal foul relying on this section of the rules.

2) Technical noncontact foul which is abusive conduct.

Was the father's conduct abusive? YES. Was an oppo-
nent the recipient of the abusive conduct? NO. It
would be difficult for an official to charge a techni-
cal foul relying on this section of the rules.

Rule 10:
1) Inciting undesirable crowd reactions.

Did the father's behavior cause undesirable crowd
reactions? To be honest, we really did not pay atten-
to the crowd's reaction to what the father did and I
seriously doubt the crowd was paying attention to what
was happening at the bench area. So my answer to this
question would have to be: NO. Could the father's
behavior be interpreted as actions that were designed
undesirable crowd reactions? NO.
that were designed

2) The head coach is responsible for the conduct and
behavior of all other bench personnel.

Was the head coach responsible for the father's conduct
with his son? YES. But remember, if the official
decides to charge the father with a technical foul,
based upon any of the YES answers above, that official
had better be prepared to charge the head coach with an
indirect technical foul. That indirect technical foul
on the head coach, while mandatory because a member of
the bench personnel has just been charged with a tech-
nical foul will be very difficult to explain to the
head coach.

The assistant coach/father's conduct with his son is not the type of behavior that any of us want to see or would condone. But it is just not the type of behavior that an official can easily explain by rule. Remember: If you can't explain it don't call it. This is one of those situations that invoking the Elastic Power is the cleanest way to handle a messy situation. The penalties for a technical foul are very severe and to award an opponent free throws and the ball for such conduct is stretching to the limit the definition of a technical foul.

When an official has an unruly fan removed from the site, do we charge his team with a technical foul? Of course not. This is a similar situation. The father's actions were not directed toward an opponent, and no matter how ugly his actions were, the best course of action (and good game management as far as I am concerned, dang I just broke my arm patting myself on the back) was to have the father removed from the site.

The father did ask how we could have him removed from the game without being charged with a technical foul, we told him what I tell my boys when they want to do something and I say no and they want a reason: Because I said so. That may be a flip definition of the Elastic Clause. But it is an accurate description of the power of the Elastic Clause.

I can assure you that if we had charged the father with a flagrant technical foul, we would have also had to charge the head coach with at least one direct technical foul, meaning at least four free throws.

I think that everyone will agree that the situation I described in our AAU game is a one in a million situation. When faced with such a situation (when the rules are very murky), and the official is considering using the Elastic Clause, he needs to ask himself the following quesiton: Will my decision be good for this game? If the answer is yes, then do it. If the answer is no, then do not do it.

Good night all. And to all a good night.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Historically, unsportsmanlike technical fouls have been interpreted to mean actions directed either toward an opponent or an official.

I would disagree that ALL unsporting fouls are committed against an opponent or official. What if a coach gets made one of his players on the floor and yells "F*CK!"? In my game, his has a T. Has he yelled at me or an opponent? No, he hasn't but he's still committed an unsporting foul. I don't see your AAU situation as being any different. But that's JMHO.

R10-S4: Bench personnel shall not:
A1: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:

While "historically" unsporting fouls are called for actions against an opponentor official, you have to admit that the rules do not specify that they have to be. The underlined phrase above gives us authority to handles situations that are not specifically listed. There's no need to go the elastic rule. In my book, the dad deeserved a T and the head coach deserved an indirect T.

[Mark Padgett]

About 3 or 4 years ago in our local rec league, I had a coach get in a kid's face and yell about how lousy the kid was playing. I told the coach to stop or he would be ejected. He said, "It's my son and I'll talk to him any way I want."

I replied, "No, today he's a player in this program and he will receive the same consideration as any other player. And, if you don't treat him that way, you'll be ejected."

He gave me some more flak and guess what? He was ejected. Oh yeah - I had him suspended for the balance of the season, too. This was the league in which I am on the Board.

It's good to be the King.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
About 3 or 4 years ago in our local rec league, I had a coach get in a kid's face and yell about how lousy the kid was playing. I told the coach to stop or he would be ejected. He said, "It's my son and I'll talk to him any way I want."

I replied, "No, today he's a player in this program and he will receive the same consideration as any other player. And, if you don't treat him that way, you'll be ejected."

He gave me some more flak and guess what? He was ejected. Oh yeah - I had him suspended for the balance of the season, too. This was the league in which I am on the Board.

It's good to be the King.

Yo,King,did you give him a flagrant T when you ejected him??Inquiring minds need to know!It is certainly germane to the previous discussion.
Btw,please note the apostrophe between Yo and King.I was not referring to Yo King,the fifth potentate of the Han dynasty.That is a completely different king.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

I would disagree that ALL unsporting fouls are committed against an opponent or official. What if a coach gets made one of his players on the floor and yells "F*CK!"? In my game, his has a T. Has he yelled at me or an opponent? No, he hasn't but he's still committed an unsporting foul. I don't see your AAU situation as being any different. But that's JMHO.

While "historically" unsporting fouls are called for actions against an opponentor official, you have to admit that the rules do not specify that they have to be. The underlined phrase above gives us authority to handles situations that are not specifically listed. There's no need to go the elastic rule. In my book, the dad deeserved a T and the head coach deserved an indirect T.

I agree!I also apologise for not using 10,000 words to do so.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

While "historically" unsporting fouls are called for actions against an opponentor official, you have to admit that the rules do not specify that they have to be. The underlined phrase above gives us authority to handles situations that are not specifically listed. There's no need to go the elastic rule. In my book, the dad deeserved a T and the head coach deserved an indirect T. [/B]

Tony, after reading Mark's post this morning, your underlined phrase was the first thing that popped into my head as well. An official can give a technical foul to any participant for any behavior that is unsportsmanlike. As I said to Mark, I totally understand what he did and why, and the guy definitely needed to be tossed, but I think we can cover his situation under Rule 10, instead of 2-3.

Chuck

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I agree!I also apologise for not using 10,000 words to do so. [/B]

Love it, love it!!!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

The use of certain socially unaccetable language being used by a coach when addressing his players on the court. I do not have a problem with the coach receiving a flagrant technical foul in this situation. How is this different than the situation that I described.

1) The coach's language took place during play and was directed toward his players who were on the court not bench personnel. The coach's language also affects all of the players (both his and his opponents around him). AND, more importantly, his language is a classic example of NFHS R10-S4-A1c.

2) The assistant coach's actions in my situation took place on the bench involving other bench personnel.


No one has ever accused me of not charging a player or bench personnel with a technical foul when warranted. But, we have all been taught two important game management rules:

1) Don't use a 500 lbm bomb to kill a fly, or don't use a nuclear warhead to destroy hornest's nest (which is probably a better analogy for my situation).

2) Do what is best for the game at that time, while not abusing the rules.

In our situation, a technical foul was not best for the game but the Elastic Clause gave us an way do deal with a serious problem while not abusing the rules.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
The use of certain socially unaccetable language being used by a coach when addressing his players on the court. I do not have a problem with the coach receiving a flagrant technical foul in this situation. How is this different than the situation that I described.

1) The coach's language took place during play and was directed toward his players who were on the court not bench personnel. The coach's language also affects all of the players (both his and his opponents around him). AND, more importantly, his language is a classic example of NFHS R10-S4-A1c.

2) The assistant coach's actions in my situation took place on the bench involving other bench personnel.

I honestly can't see any difference between #1 and #2 above.Both are flagrant acts!R10-S4-A1c doesn't list any restricting factors in it's application.Why should one be treated different than the other?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on May 12th, 2002 at 10:01 AM]

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
The use of certain socially unaccetable language being used by a coach when addressing his players on the court. I do not have a problem with the coach receiving a flagrant technical foul in this situation. How is this different than the situation that I described.

1) The coach's language took place during play and was directed toward his players who were on the court not bench personnel. The coach's language also affects all of the players (both his and his opponents around him). AND, more importantly, his language is a classic example of NFHS R10-S4-A1c.

Are you saying that simply because the player was on the floor as opposed to the bench, the response by the coach makes a difference? I could just have easily described the play as a player made a bad play, the coach took him out, and then yelled "F*ck!" so that everyone in the gym heard it. That doesn't hold water.

2) The assistant coach's actions in my situation took place on the bench involving other bench personnel.

So, since the kid was on the bench, it's different than yelling a profanity because of what a player on the floor did?

No one has ever accused me of not charging a player or bench personnel with a technical foul when warranted.

And no one has here either. We're just simply saying that rules are in place to handle this sitch, while you're saying only 2-3 allows you to address it. That's simply no true.

But, we have all been taught two important game management rules:

1) Don't use a 500 lb bomb to kill a fly, or don't use a nuclear warhead to destroy hornest's nest (which is probably a better analogy for my situation).

You mean like replying to a post with 14 paragraphs when 14 words would have worked just as well!

2) Do what is best for the game at that time, while not abusing the rules.

Since when is penalizing unsporting behavior an example of abusing the rules?

In our situation, a technical foul was not best for the game but the Elastic Clause gave us an way do deal with a serious problem while not abusing the rules.

Nah! You didn't have it, you just chose to do it that way.

It's kind of amazing to me that you want to call a T and an intentional foul in the other situation, but you're unwilling to call a T on an asst. coach who is abusing a player.

Just wanted to add I don't see a problem with what you did, but I think the situation could have been handled by applying Rule 10.

[Edited by BktBallRef on May 13th, 2002 at 11:13 AM]

[Brian Watson]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Mark, how is ejection of a coach not specifically covered in the rules? Seems pretty well covered. A coach is ejected for one flagrant T, or 2 direct T's, or any combination of direct and indirect T's that adds up to 3.

I'm not sure why 2-3 applies here.

Chuck

I am not going to defend anyone's postion, but this statement was at the heart of my earlier post. There are clear guidlines of when you must eject a player or coach; ie when they hit their T limit. However, the rulebook does not say you have to give those T's before an ejection. I don't think this falls under the elasticity rule at all, it is already in the book, although it is pretty ambiguous.

Would I ever do it, probably not, but I think the rule book supports an ejection without T's simply because it does not explicitly say you cannot do it.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Yo,King,did you give him a flagrant T when you ejected him??Inquiring minds need to know!It is certainly germane to the previous discussion.

I not only gave him a flagrant T, I took away all his bananas, followed him back to his cage at the zoo and deflated his tire swing.

Then I put him in a cage with an angry, hungry, gay gorilla.

The video is selling on ebay.

[ur call]

Some people need to get a life!!!