Delay Penality

[BillyClyde 68]

So this would not be a T on the player, only on the team?

[JRutledge]

Yes.

Peace

[VTOfficial]

Does a technical foul for a delay put the seatbelt on the head coach?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by VTOfficial

Does a technical foul for a delay put the seatbelt on the head coach?

No Team Technical Fouls have anything to do directly or indirectly with the coach.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by VTOfficial

Does a technical foul for a delay put the seatbelt on the head coach?

No, since this foul is not charged to the coach, neither directly or indirectly.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyClyde 68

So this would not be a T on the player, only on the team?

The T is listed in 10-1, so it's a Team T.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The T is listed in 10-1, so it's a Team T.

Are any of the four "delay technicals" (free throw huddle, crossing boundary line, interfere with ball after goal, court not ready(water)) charged to a player???

NFHS 10-3-5-a: A player shall not delay the game by acts such as: Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in
play. (10-3 lists player technicals)

NFHS 10-1-5-e: A team shall not allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts: Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay. (10-1 lists team technicals)

[refnrev]

Originally Posted by BillyClyde 68

So this would not be a T on the player, only on the team?

______________
BC 68,
Check out the techincal foul table in the rule book. It's a handy way to remember these. Keep it dogeared for quick reference.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

BillyMac referenced the correct Sections and Articles in the NFHS Rules. In the original post, A1 would be charged with the TF per R1-S3-A5a even though Team A previously received an Official Warning per R4-S47. In fact, this would still be a TF charged to A1 even if Team A had NOT received an Official Warning for an infraction of R4-S47, but A1's TF would trigger an Official Warning to Team A.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BillyMac referenced the correct Sections and Articles in the NFHS Rules. In the original post, A1 would be charged with the TF per R1-S3-A5a even though Team A previously received an Official Warning per R4-S47. In fact, this would still be a TF charged to A1 even if Team A had NOT received an Official Warning for an infraction of R4-S47, but A1's TF would trigger an Official Warning to Team A.MTD, Sr.

How does one differentiate a team technical (10-1) from a player technical for (10-3) when a player prevents the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play by interfering with the ball following a goal?

Are free throw huddles and/or court not ready (water), always team technicals after a warning?

Can crossing the boundary line ever be a player technical after a team warning? Or is it always a team technical?

I thought I understood these delays. Not so. I'm getting confused. Help me, or, I swear, I'll make another study guide, and this is not an idle threat.

[BillyClyde 68]

I called it a direct t on A1. He caused the delay. I still think I was right!!!!!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyClyde 68

I called it a direct t on A1. He caused the delay. I still think I was right!!!!!

The problem is you were wrong. It goes to the team, just like an excessive timeout T.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

BillyMac referenced the correct Sections and Articles in the NFHS Rules. In the original post, A1 would be charged with the TF per R1-S3-A5a even though Team A previously received an Official Warning per R4-S47. In fact, this would still be a TF charged to A1 even if Team A had NOT received an Official Warning for an infraction of R4-S47, but A1's TF would trigger an Official Warning to Team A.

MTD, Sr.

Sorry, MTD, but you are incorrect. You are also confusing some people.

The action of A1, knocking the ball away following a made goal, is not worthy of a player technical foul. The NFHS says so directly in the Case Book. A1 would have to do something above and beyond a normal batting of the ball, such as throwing it into the 10th row, to get charged with an unsporting foul.

10.1.5 SITUATION D:

Immediately following a goal by A1, A3 slaps the ball
away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in. RULING: The official
shall sound his/her whistle and go to the table to have the scorer record a team
warning for delay. The warning shall then be reported to the head coach of Team

A. Any subsequent delay by Team A shall result in a team technical foul charged
to Team A. (4-47-3)

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How does one differentiate a team technical (10-1) from a player technical for (10-3) when a player prevents the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play by interfering with the ball following a goal?

If the infraction committed is one of the four items listed as a team delay, then that is the proper call. 10-3-5a is used for other ways in which a player delays the game. An example would be refusing to occupy the proper half of the center restraining circle for the jump ball to begin the first quarter or an overtime period in a timely manner.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Are free throw huddles and/or court not ready (water), always team technicals after a warning?

YES.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Can crossing the boundary line ever be a player technical after a team warning? Or is it always a team technical?

NO. Crossing the boundary WITHOUT making any contact with the ball or the player is always a team warning or team technical. NEVER to the player. Crossing the boundary and contacting the ball while it is in the thrower's hands is a player technical.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I thought I understood these delays. Not so. I'm getting confused. Help me, or, I swear, I'll make another study guide, and this is not an idle threat.

You are confused because MTD wrote something which is incorrect.

Originally Posted by BillyClyde 68

I called it a direct t on A1. He caused the delay. I still think I was right!!!!!

Nope, you got it wrong. Read what I wrote above to BillyMac and MTD. Pay special attention to the NFHS case play.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

How does one differentiate a team technical (10-1) from a player technical for (10-3) when a player prevents the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play by interfering with the ball following a goal?

If it's one of the things that we give a delay warning for, then the technical (for delay) goes on the team. If it's not one of the things that we give a warning for, then it goes on the player.

Breaking the plane receives a warning the first time. So the second time, it could be done by a different kid. Therefore, the team gets the foul, not the kid.

Touching the ball while the inbounder is holding it does not get a warning. Therefore, it goes directly on the kid.

Similarly, rolling the ball away from the official in frustration delays the game but does not receive a warning. So you if call a kid for traveling and he rolls the ball to the other end of the gym, technical foul on the player, not just the team.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If it's one of the things that we give a delay warning for, then the technical (for delay) goes on the team. If it's not one of the things that we give a warning for, then it goes on the player.

Breaking the plane receives a warning the first time. So the second time, it could be done by a different kid. Therefore, the team gets the foul, not the kid.

Touching the ball while the inbounder is holding it does not get a warning. Therefore, it goes directly on the kid.

Similarly, rolling the ball away from the official in frustration delays the game but does not receive a warning. So you if call a kid for traveling and he rolls the ball to the other end of the gym, technical foul on the player, not just the team.

Not only are you correct, but you were much faster.

However, I did cite the case play.