Bench Technical vs. Player Technical
 

Surprised this has not been discussed yet, but what is the protocol for assessing a tech against an individual player on the bench vs. the more usual bench technical assessed against the bench collectively? Obviously the call in the Duke / Georgetown game is the genesis for this question. It had a significant impact on flow of the game and player availability and media reports are questioning whether it was a fan who actually made the offending remark. The video reply shows that the ref was not looking at the bench when the comment was made, but turned in response to something said and T'd up the individual player. It had a big impact on the game - 4th personal on major contributor, etc...

How does this work? I do not recall seeing a player T'd up on the bench, one who is not up, yelling, actively doing 'something', but I have only been paying close attention to officiating for a short time.

Any help on the guidelines for this would be appreciated. Thank you.:confused:

I will answer, but I am not sure what you mean by "protocol."

No one on the bench can act in an unsportsmanlike manner just because they are on the bench. It is not necessary to look at the bench if it is obvious that something was said. Sometimes if a person has been running their mouths more than once and it is obvious who is talking.

And if a key contributor wants to stay in the game, then he probably should be quite while sitting on the bench.

Peace

The usual "bench technical" is assessed against the bench collectively? I'd question that assumption.

The protocol is to blow the whistle and report the foul. I didn't see the game -- did the officials do something different?

Thanks guys -

Near as I can tell the player in question had not been 'jawing' or otherwise getting up in anybody's face and GU players are not demonstrative like some - certainly their coach does not yell at refs like many do. He was a bit incredulous about his three previous offensive fouls, but hardly in an overblown manner, more just like a kid getting a little frustrated.

Bob - The offending shout or heckle or whatever it was seems certainly to have come from a fan behind the bench, not anyone on the bench, which is why it seems odd that the official went right after this player. Maybe JRut is right that he was being too vocal, but I have certainly seen a lot worse from players and coaches. Throw in that Cameron is a loud and confusing place and it just seemed strange that the official following the play could be so certain it was this kid. Maybe I am wrong that the tech is usually on the bench in general, but I don't recall seeing a seated player T'd up.

If anything a bench foul or a warning to the fan seemed appropriate. Absent seeing the guy call him out or being 100% certain, it is hard to see how you can effectively take a guy out of the game who has worked so hard to get there (and in this case appears to have done nothing warranting a tech).

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.

Thanks again.

What is this "bench foul" of which you speak? If you can identify the offender, you give it to the individual.

I'm sure the supervisor is asking the right questions and that the official will be dealt with if he did this incorreclty. Since none of us were there, the rest is just speculation.

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.

Some thoughts:

I get the impression that you're a Georgetown fan. Could it be?

There's no such thing as a "bench foul." There is no "more usual bench technical assessed against the bench collectively." You assess it to the person who opened his mouth.

It makes no difference if the player "has worked so hard to get there." When you're on the bench, you'd be smart to keep your mouth shut.

John Cahill has worked several Final Fours and National Championship games. He was there, we were not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Section 6. (MEN) CLASS B TECHNICAL INFRACTIONS
Art. 1. A technical foul shall be assessed to a player or a substitute for the
following infractions:
a. Purposely obstructing an opponent’s vision by waving or placing
hand(s) near his eyes.
b. Climbing on or lifting a teammate to secure greater height.
c. Knowingly attempting a free throw to which he is not entitled.
d. Possessing or using tobacco.
e. A team member dunking or attempting to dunk a dead ball before or
during the game, or during any intermission.
f. Grasping either basket in an excessive, emphatic manner during the
officials’ jurisdiction when the player is not, in the judgment of an
official, trying to prevent an obvious injury to self or others.

g. Intentionally slapping or striking the backboard or causing either the
backboard or ring to vibrate while the ball is in flight during a try, or
while the ball is touching the backboard, is on the basket ring, in the
basket net or in the cylinder.
h. Placing a hand(s) on the backboard or ring to gain an advantage.
i. Touching a ball in flight (goaltending) during a free throw.
j. Reach through the throw-in boundary-line plane and touch or
dislodge the ball while it is in possession of the thrower or being
passed to a teammate outside the boundary line as in 7-5.8.a.
k. Deceptively leaving the playing court for an unauthorized reason and
returning at a more advantageous position.
l. Purposely delaying his return to the playing court after being legally
out of bounds.
m. After a team warning has been issued, attempting to gain an advantage
by interfering with the ball after a goal or failing to immediately pass
the ball to the nearest official after the whistle had been blown.
n. A substitute entering the playing court without reporting to the
official scorer or without being beckoned onto the playing court by
an official (unless during an intermission).
o. Participating after changing his uniform number without reporting
the change to the official scorer and a game official.
Art. 2. A technical foul shall be assessed to the coach and all bench
personnel for the following infractions:
a. Entering the playing court unless done with permission of an official
to attend to an injured player.
b. Possessing or using tobacco.
c. Refusing to occupy the team bench to which the team was assigned
or to occupy the locations for a timeout or for the start of any period
as defined in Rule 4-7.2.
d. Using electronic transmission (e.g. headsets, cellular telephones,
modular telephones, television, radio, audio or video internet
broadcast), or knowledge gained resulting from thereof, to
communicate to and from the bench area or using television monitors
or replay equipment at courtside for coaching purposes.

e. When there is evidence that the head coach or bench personnel
instructed for the scorebook to be removed from the scorer’s table.
f. All bench personnel shall remain seated on the bench while the ball
is live, except as follows:
1. The head coach who may stand but must remain completely and
clearly in his coaching box. One warning shall be issued to the
head coach before any subsequent infraction is penalized.
2. To spontaneously react to an outstanding play, immediately
sitting down on the bench afterwards.
3. A team member reporting to the scorer’s table.
4. To point out, at any time, a scoring or timing mistake or to request
a timeout to ascertain whether a correctable error needs to be
rectified (Rule 2-12; 5-10.5).
5. To seek information from the official scorer or official timer
during a timeout or an intermission.
g. The head coach shall replace a disqualified or injured player within
20 seconds when a substitute is available.
h. Delaying the game by preventing the ball from being promptly
made live or by preventing continuous play, such as bench personnel
entering the playing court before player activity has been terminated.
In such a case, when the delay does not interfere with play, it shall be
ignored.
i. Using a laser pointer.
j. Bench personnel leaving the bench area when a fight may break out
or has broken out. The head coach may leave the bench area in this
case to prevent the situation from escalating.
PENALTY: Article 1 and Article 2.a through i. Two free throws shall
be awarded to any member of the offended team. All
infractions count toward ejection but do not count toward
the team-foul total or disqualification.
The coach is responsible for the conduct of all bench
personnel. When a CLASS B technical foul, as described
in Article 2, is assessed against an offender, it shall also be
charged to the head coach as a CLASS B technical foul.

RESUMPTION OF PLAY: Article 1 and Article 2. After the
administration of the penalty, play shall resume at the
point of interruption.
EJECTION: Article 1 and Article 2. CLASS B technical fouls apply
toward ejection when the following have been assessed:
a maximum of three CLASS B technical fouls (BBB) or a
combination of one CLASS A and two CLASS B technical
fouls (ABB).
Any individual who leaves the bench area and enters the
playing court but does not participate in a fight (Art. 2.j)
shall not be assessed a CLASS B technical foul (no free
throws awarded). That individual shall be ejected but is
not subject to suspension.
Note: An assistant coach who replaces the ejected head
coach shall not inherit the accumulative technical fouls
of the head coach. However, the assistant coach shall be
responsible for technical fouls previously charged to him.

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)."

Probably a hypothetical disorder.

Actually JRut is right in a sense, Class A to the player and since he is bench personnel a Class B to the HC.

I'm not sure if it is still in the NCAA Rule Book, but I remeber there used ot be a case where a referee hears foul language from a bench and either (a) knows who said or (b) doesn't know. In A, the person who said it gets the T and in B the Bench (Indirect on HC) gets it. Not sure if this is still the correct interp.

Here are the NCAA rules and case plays for both men and women from the 2008-09 books:

Men:
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)."

(MEN) CLASS A–Unsporting Technical Infractions
A.R. 254. The official is advancing up the playing court to cover the play
and as the official passes Team A’s bench with his or her back to
it, someone on that bench uses profanity. The official is certain
from which bench the profanity came but not from which
party.
RULING: When the official cannot, with assurance, determine the
violator, the official shall assess a CLASS A technical foul to the head
coach. The official alone shall decide to whom a technical foul shall
be charged. It is not the prerogative of the coach or other bench
personnel to come forward as the party guilty of unsportsmanlike
bench decorum.
(Rule 10-5.2.c)

================================================
Women:
Rule 10 / fouls and penalties
Section 4. (WOMEN) Bench Technical Fouls
PENALTY:
...
(Art. 1, 4, 7) When there is more than one offender
(excluding the head coach) or a single offender that cannot
be identified, one bench technical foul shall be assessed
regardless of the number of offenders. This technical foul is
also charged indirectly to the head coach.

(WOMEN) Bench Technicals
A.R. 243. The official is advancing up the playing court to cover the play
and as the official passes Team A’s bench with his back to it,
someone on that bench uses profanity. The official is certain
from which bench the profanity came but not from which
party.
RULING: When the official cannot, with assurance, determine
the violator, the official shall assess a bench technical to the bench
and an indirect technical foul to the head coach. The official alone
shall decide to whom a technical foul shall be charged. It is not the
prerogative of the coach or other bench personnel to come forward as
the party guilty of unsportsmanlike bench decorum.
(Rule 10-4.1.c)

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.

BBallRef -

I am a fan of the game and of the players, who I think deserve better than this. And in this case, it seems the player certainly followed your advice and kept his mouth shut, but he got T'd up anyone - hmmmmm.

Look at it this way - today the Duke student newspaper retracted an earlier story alleging that the player in fact said something and changed their story to the more widely reported 'someone behind the bench'. They could hardly be called GU fans, no? I think we all know CIS is a wild place to experience with 9000 home fans yelling persistently, which just exagerrates the oddness of the official claiming it was this one opposing player who was out of line vocally. As JRut pointed out, perhaps he knew the voice, which is interesting because since being made available for interviews, numerous DC media have reported on the distinct quality of this kids baritone. Makes it even harder to believe he mistook it.

There is a lot of good info and I thank everyone for their insight. I won't bother discussing Class A and B since I think that has been clarified now by others and glad to hear that their is a protocol in place for when you aren't certain who said what , as was sited in the example given later in the thread.

Thanks again.

I see it has begun. ;)

I didn't see the game. I can't say anything about the call. I'm a G'town guy. I can state that both JT3 and Summers got T'd in the victory over Syracuse, which was the previous game, and both deserved it.

After checking the ESPN report on the game, this other poster may have a point.

But roughly 30 seconds later, Henry Sims was whistled for a blocking foul near the baseline and Monroe objected from the bench, prompting the technical foul from official John Cahill -- the fourth foul on the Hoyas' 6-foot-11 big man.
"I don't even believe [Cahill] was even looking at the bench, but I know I definitely didn't say anything," Monroe said. "I can't say what I heard, or what somebody else said, but I know I didn't say a thing."

However, either JT3 knows that someone with the team said something or he is really taking the high road here.

The technical foul "clearly altered how they attacked us and what we could do, but that's not the reason we ended up with less points than them," Hoyas coach John Thompson III said. "They outplayed us. We're not going to sit here and look at that and say that's the reason the outcome was what it was."