This question is for HS ball but I was told by college official that you can toss a coach without giving him a T. He said he wanted to get rif of the coach, but not penalize the players. Can you toss a coach with no T's? I no you can toss him with only one T or on the second T, but I didn't think you could with no T's.....

Please let me know rule or case if you can... Thanks..

With out the book in front of me to see exactly how it is worded, I assume you could disqualify and eject any player or coach with out issuing a T. The other coach might be a little upset over that, but you technically (no pun intended) could do it.

I see the rule as this...The ejection levels for T's are just that, they are the penalty if you accrue that many T's. An ejection is not directly tied only to having a T issued. They are separate items, unless you get too many T's.

By rule, I think the only way you could eject a coach without 2 direct technical fouls or 3 indirect technical fouls would be by calling a flagrant technical foul on the coach. I've never seen that happen.

Can you help me envision what a coach would do that would be even worse behavior than a flagrant "T" thereby necessitating ejection without a T?

Z

I agree with Z. I don't think a supervisor would ever support an ejection w/o a T. To answer the question, yes, but only b/c the official has all control of the game. An official can do many things involving a game, but there could be hell to pay later.

Here's why I don't think under NF rules that you could toss a coach without issuing a technical. Although NF rule 2-8-2 says "The officials shall: Penalize and disqualify the offender if flagrant misconduct occurs." - and there is no specific definition of "flagrant misconduct" as it relates to technical fouls, NF rule 10-4-1 covers all the specific ways bench personnel can behave to receive a technical. I can't think of anything not listed that would result in wanting to toss a coach, therefore all the bad behavior I would want to penalize is in the technical foul rule.

Now you see why I never became a lawyer. ;)

Hmmmm, some of these college officials amaze me with their "thinking."

[Edited by BktBallRef on May 10th, 2002 at 11:19 PM]

A coach must be charged with either 1 flagrant T, 2 directs, or 3 indirects (or the appropriate combinations thereof) to be ejected (in NCAA terminology) or to be thrown out of the game.

To simply remove a coach with no penalty to the players is certainly a generous, noble thought, but it flies against the rules. Besides, the coach is part of the team as well, and his behavior must reflect on the team.

Yes, you can remove a coach or assistant coach without assessing any technical fouls.

During the 1998 AAU Boys' 13U/14U N.I.T. my partner and I had a game where one of the assistant coaches was the father of one of the players. Early in the third quarter the assistant coach's son throw the ball out-of-bounds. The head coach was not happy with the player's pass and took the boy out of the game. 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. My partner (a minister) and I saw this and we immediately stopped the game and told the father/assistant coach that he had to leave the building. He asked us how we could make him leave the buildiing without charging him with a technical foul. We told him that we did not have to charge him with a technical foul, we just did not want him in the building anymore. He was not happy but he left, but he was back in the gym within five minutes with the site manager. The site manager wanted to know what happened. We told him what happened and he told the father assistant coach to get of the building pronto.

Mark, just 'cuz you did it, doesn't mean it was supported by the rules. Maybe it is supported by the rules, but your anecdotal evidence from your partner's actions in one game (an AAU game, no less) 4 years ago doesn't give me the confidence to do the same thing.

Chuck

It is most certainly covered in the rules:

NFHS: Referee's Authority: Rule 2, Section 3: The referee shall make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules.

NCAA: Elastic Power: Rule 2, Section 3, Article 1: The referee shall be empowered to make decisions on any point not covered in the rules.

FIBA: Referee: Powers: Rule 3, Article 6.9: The referee shall have the power to make decisions on any points not specifically covered in the rules.

NBA: Elastcic Powers: Rule 2, Section III: The officials shall have the power to make decisions on any point not specifically covered in the rules. The Basketball Operations Department will be advised of all such decisions at the earliest possible moment.

WNBA: Elastic Powers: Rule 2, Section III: The officials shall have the power to make decisions on any point not specifically covered in the rules. The Basketball Operations Department will be advised of all such decisions at the earliest possible moment.


Its funny how all of the major rules codes are alike on a seemingly minor section of the rules, including the rule number and section number (except FIBA).

Nonetheless, I cannot fathom a better example of an official using this power than my real life example in my earlier posting. I will say, that this is the only time (knock on wood) that I have ever been involved in a situation that was not specifically covered in the rules.

And if this situation were to happen in a high school or jr. high school game I would not hesitate to do what we did in the AAU game. I think it was the correct decision then and it would be the correct decision if it happened again. It might be a hard sell at the college level and I think that the only situation at the college level I would try it is if a male coach were to do it to a female player. If a male coach tried to do it to a male player the player just might hit him back.

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

Our situation in the AAU tournament was perfect example of using the elastic clause. I cannot comment on the NBA/WNBA rules, but everything in the rules (NFHS/NCAA and FIBA) concerning the conduct of the coaches deals with the coach's actions toward his opponents or the game officials. An official would be hard pressed to charge a coach with a technical foul for doing what the assistant coach did in our AAU game.

As the father of two sons (age 9 and 12) I would not allow my children to be coached by a person like that. His conduct could not fit the description of something that is not specifically covered the the rules. It is my opinion, that the NCAA, NFHS, or any StateHSAA would be hard pressed not to support an official, who faced with the situation that we had in that AAU game, in the making the same decision that we made that day. It would have served no purpose to charge the assistant coach with a flagrant foul thereby giving his team's opponent two free throws and the ball. It was the best thing for the game to just have him removed from the facility.

The reality of the situation was that the assistant coach's actions would probably be considered felony child abuse, and I do not know about you, but I do not want my children being coached by a child abuser.

I need to correct the grammer of the second sentence of the second paragraph of my last post. It should read as follows:

His conduct fits the description of something that is not specifically covered the the rules

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Quote:

The reality of the situation was that the assistant coach's actions would probably be considered felony child abuse,

That sounds flagrantly unsportsmanlike to me. Flagrant T and toss. Definitely covered under rule 10.

I understand what you did and why, Mark. And I agree that the guy should've been tossed. But I don't think you need to invoke 2-3 to do it. And in general, I don't know if you can -- by rule -- toss a coach without charging him with some kind of foul. Just trying to show the other side of the argument.

Chuck

Mark, using 2-3 here is like crew using 2-3 to justify calling BI on a hitting the backboard play.

Certainly, you can call over game management, and they can send someone off, but an official cannot do so (to a team member) without invoking some sort of penalty.

<b><i>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.</b></i><P>
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

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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

:D Love it, love it!!!

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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

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

Quote:

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]

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 <b> must </b> eject a player or coach; ie when they hit their T limit. However, the rulebook does not say you <b> have </b> 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.

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. :D

Some people need to get a life!!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Quote:

Then I put him in a cage with an angry, hungry, gay gorilla. The video is selling on ebay. :D

Isn't the video called "Trading Places", starring Eddie Murphy, Dan Akroyd, and Jamie Lee Curtis (as the hooker-with-a-heart)?

"I need to correct the grammer of the second sentence of the second paragraph of my last post. It should read as follows:"

You also need to correct your spelling. It's grammar.

Bob

Since your profile indicates you have no location, occupation or interests, I would guess that means you. ;)

Since you have only 14 posts, obviously, you are new to this board. Unlike the "other" one, people here only make personal remarks in a light-hearted, teasing, non-mean spirited way. We always add a ;) or :) , or something similar to let the other person know we are just kidding.

And another thing - if you are going to participate here, you have to be able to take it as well as dish it out.

You will also find there is a lot of humor used on this board, and pretty much everyone seems to like it and participates in it (some funnier than others - see MTD's posts ;) - see, I used a winky face). When we get closer to next season, there will be more serious discussion and fewer non-basketball threads and posts.

You are absolutely correct. I did not proofread the first posting nor the posting with the correction.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Padgett Quote: Then I put him in a cage with an angry, hungry, gay gorilla. The video is selling on ebay. :D Isn't the video called "Trading Places", starring Eddie Murphy, Dan Akroyd, and Jamie Lee Curtis (as the hooker-with-a-heart)?

Yeah. They stole the idea from me.

Great question!!!
Don't have rule book with me.
After reading the replys I agree that it would VERY difficult to do, but I believe it could be done in a rare occasion.
Example:
Coach with no T's throws a chair onto the court (i.e. Bobby Knight). I think that would deserve an early exit without warning.

Yes, that deserves an exit without warning - also known as a FLAGRANT TECHNICAL.

Unless we somehow get game management involved, there is no way for an official to summarily dismiss a coach without first assessing the requisite number of technical fouls.