Bench Technical vs. Player Technical

[whistlesblow]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by whistlesblow

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?

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?

[whistlesblow]

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.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by whistlesblow

If anything a bench foul

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.

[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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by whistlesblow

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.

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.

[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.