Bench Technical vs. Player Technical

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by whistlesblow

I am of the school that says officials are not the ones people came to see and their impact on the game should be kept to a necessary minimum - maintaining flow and keeping the rules, etc. This situation seems to have gone beyond that, with an official becoming a significant factor. Just my humble opinion.

Bench personel are not allowed to disrespectfully address officials. If the comment from the bench warrents a foul then call it. You don't need to get into some type of psychlogical thinking to make the decision.

[whistlesblow]

Fair enough, but when you are talking about a Class A tech on someone on the bench, player, coach or other personnel, don't you have to be pretty dang sure who made the offensive comment before you assign it to an individual and not make it an administrative foul? This situation was a team follower (or someone else in the seats behind the bench). The official was not looking that way and there are easy remedies in place when you don't know who said something - i.e. admin tech. It seems like overreaching to jeopardize a player's participation iin the game based on conjecture that it was him - these guys work hard and deserve better from the officials, in my opinion. If there was no admin remedy that would be one thing, but there is and I guess I thought it should have been used in this case.

Originally Posted by LDUB

Bench personel are not allowed to disrespectfully address officials. If the comment from the bench warrents a foul then call it. You don't need to get into some type of psychlogical thinking to make the decision.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by whistlesblow

Fair enough, but when you are talking about a Class A tech on someone on the bench, player, coach or other personnel, don't you have to be pretty dang sure who made the offensive comment before you assign it to an individual and not make it an administrative foul? This situation was a team follower (or someone else in the seats behind the bench). The official was not looking that way and there are easy remedies in place when you don't know who said something - i.e. admin tech. It seems like overreaching to jeopardize a player's participation iin the game based on conjecture that it was him - these guys work hard and deserve better from the officials, in my opinion. If there was no admin remedy that would be one thing, but there is and I guess I thought it should have been used in this case.

Did you have a conversation with the officials that none of us are aware of? If you did not talk to the officials, you do not know why they called the T.

And you do not have to look at someone to recognize who said something, if you recognize their voice or you know a particular person was making the comments. And if no one wants to get penalized, then shut the hell up. Then you will not have to worry about anyone assuming who said something.

The problem is you are obviously listening to media people who know nothing about rules or officiating procedures (but try to act like they do) instead of hearing from the officials that actually made the call.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by whistlesblow

Fair enough, but when you are talking about a Class A tech on someone on the bench, player, coach or other personnel, don't you have to be pretty dang sure who made the offensive comment before you assign it to an individual and not make it an administrative foul?

Please explain what a Class A tech is? I can't find it in the rule book.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Please explain what a Class A tech is? I can't find it in the rule book.

An unsporting T under NCAA Men's Rules, which I believe this situation called for.

Peace

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

An unsporting T under NCAA Men's Rules, which I believe this situation called for.

Peace

Really? What did the kid say?

And then, lah me, to lie about it and claim that he didn't say anything!

Oh, any idea why Singler wasn't charged with a flagrant foul (rather than an intentional) when he took a swing at Wattad ?

JM

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Oh, any idea why Singler wasn't charged with a flagrant foul (rather than an intentional) when he took a swing at Wattad ?

I did not see what happened but punching is a flagrant foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Really? What did the kid say?

If he gave the player on the bench a T, that is a Class B Technical. That is what the situation calls for if one is called.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Please explain what a Class A tech is? I can't find it in the rule book.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

An unsporting T under NCAA Men's Rules, which I believe this situation called for.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If he gave the player on the bench a T, that is a Class B Technical. That is what the situation calls for if one is called.

I see that Rut is exhibiting his multiple personality disorder again.

Tony,
The NCAA reclassified technical fouls this year on the men's side. Essentially, Direct and Indirect became Class A and Class B.

Here are the pertinent NCAA rules:

4-29-3c. (MEN) CLASS A and CLASS B technical fouls. A CLASS A
technical foul involves unsportsmanlike conduct or behavior by a
player, substitute, coach or bench personnel. A CLASS B technical
foul is an infraction of the rules that neither involves contact with an
opponent nor causes contact with an opponent and falls below the
limit of an unsportsmanlike act. Examples of CLASS A and CLASS
B technical fouls shall include:
1. Unsportsmanlike conduct; using profanity, vulgarity, taunting,
baiting (CLASS A);
2. Requesting an excessive timeout (CLASS B); and
3. Hanging on the ring, except when doing so to prevent an injury
(CLASS B).

Rule 10
Section 5. (MEN) CLASS A Unsporting Technical Infractions
Art. 1. A player or substitute committing an unsportsmanlike act including,
but not limited to, the following:
a. Disrespectfully addressing or contacting an official or gesturing in
such a manner as to indicate resentment.
b. Using profanity or vulgarity, taunting, baiting or ridiculing another
player or bench personnel; or pointing a finger at or making obscene
gestures toward another player or bench personnel.
c. Inciting undesirable crowd reaction.
d. Intentionally contacting an opponent in an excessive but non-flagrant
manner while the ball is dead.
e. A flagrant non-contact infraction that involves extreme, sometimes
persistent, vulgar, abusive conduct when the ball is dead or live.
f. Participating after having been disqualified (non-contact flagrant
technical).
g. A player flagrantly or excessively contacting an opponent while the
ball is dead.
h. Leaving the playing court and going into the stands when a fight may
break out or has broken out (flagrant non-contact infraction).
i. Fighting as in Rule 4-26.
PENALTY: Two free throws shall be awarded to any member of the
offended team. No free throws shall be awarded for a double
or offsetting technical foul. Counts toward the team-foul
total. Applies toward disqualification and ejection (Art.
1.a through d). Flagrant technical foul(s) (Art. 1.e through
i) are non-applicable toward disqualification since they
lead to automatic ejection. An assessed technical foul that
cannot be charged to an individual shall be charged to the
head coach (ex. Art. 1.f).
RESUMPTION OF PLAY: For any technical foul(s), play shall resume
at the point of interruption except for a single intentional
or a single flagrant technical foul. For a single intentional
or a single flagrant technical foul, the ball shall be awarded
to the offended team at a designated spot at the division
line on either side of the playing court.
EJECTION: All CLASS A technical fouls shall apply toward ejection
when the following have been assessed: a maximum of
two CLASS A technical fouls (AA) as defined in Art. 1.a
through d, one flagrant technical foul (A) or a combination
of one CLASS A technical foul and two CLASS B technical
fouls (ABB).
Any individual who actively participates in a fight (Art. 1.i) shall be
ejected and is subject to suspension (See Rule 10-7).
Art. 2. Bench personnel committing an unsportsmanlike act including, but
not limited to, the following:
a. Disrespectfully addressing an official.
b. Attempting to influence an official’s decision.
c. Using profanity or language that is abusive, vulgar or obscene.
d. Taunting or baiting an opponent.
e. Objecting to an official’s decision by rising from the bench or using
gestures.
f. Inciting undesirable crowd reactions.
g. Fighting by bench personnel as in Rule 4-26.
PENALTY: Two free throws shall be awarded to the offended team.
No free throws shall be awarded for double or offsetting
technical fouls. Counts toward the team-foul total. Applies
toward disqualification and ejection except for Art. 2.g
which is non-applicable toward disqualification since it
leads to automatic ejection.
Since the head coach is responsible for the conduct and
behavior of all bench personnel, when a CLASS A technical
foul (Art.2.a through g) is assessed to an offender, it shall
also be charged to the head coach as a CLASS B technical
foul.
RESUMPTION OF PLAY: For any technical foul(s), play shall resume
at the point of interruption. For a single flagrant technical
foul (fighting, Art. 2.g), the ball shall be awarded to the
offended team at a designated spot at the division line on
either side of the playing court.
EJECTION: All CLASS A technical fouls shall apply toward ejection
when the following have been assessed: a maximum of
two CLASS A technical fouls (AA) as defined in Art. 2.a
through f, one flagrant technical foul (A), or a combination
of one CLASS A technical foul and two CLASS B technical
fouls (ABB).
Any individual who actively participates in a fight (Art.
2.g) shall be ejected and shall be subject to suspension (See
Rule 10-7).
Note: An assistant coach who replaces the ejected head
coach shall not inherit any technical fouls the head coach
has accumulated. However, the assistant coach shall be
responsible for technical fouls previously charged to him.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by whistlesblow

Fair enough, but when you are talking about a Class A tech on someone on the bench, player, coach or other personnel, don't you have to be pretty dang sure who made the offensive comment before you assign it to an individual and not make it an administrative foul? This situation was a team follower (or someone else in the seats behind the bench). The official was not looking that way and there are easy remedies in place when you don't know who said something - i.e. admin tech.

There is no "easy remedy" for this. If it was a team follower who made the remark, then it should have been an admin T. If it was a Team Member, then it should have been a Class A tech on the team member. You can't say, "it was someone on the team, but I don't know who, so I'll make it an admin T." The official apparently knew who it was, or made a mistake. Shrug. It happens.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There is no "easy remedy" for this. If it was a team follower who made the remark, then it should have been an admin T. If it was a Team Member, then it should have been a Class A tech on the team member. You can't say, "it was someone on the team, but I don't know who, so I'll make it an admin T." The official apparently knew who it was, or made a mistake. Shrug. It happens.

How about this, Bob?
10-5-1 Penalty:
"An assessed technical foul that cannot be charged to an individual shall be charged to the head coach (ex. Art. 1.f)."

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How about this, Bob?
10-5-1 Penalty:
"An assessed technical foul that cannot be charged to an individual shall be charged to the head coach (ex. Art. 1.f)."

That seems (to me) to apply to Players and Subs -- not to Bench Personnel, who are covered under 10-5-2, and only when the Player / Sub cannot get a T (using the example given of a DQ player), not when the offender is not known.

Your later case play cite seems more on target, but it's still not an Admin T as the OP seems to want.

All that said, I work far more NCAAW than NCAAM, so my knowledge of some of the finer points of the rules is a little suspect for NCAAM.