Thanks for pointing out #3, I had forgot to put this into the equation.

I'm still judging the second technical foul as flagrant, as this a flagrant act. Whether the repercussions are the same are of no consequence to my decision.

I'll only quibble about point #3 here. Case 10.4.1e gives us leeway to hold the whistle if the other team is driving for a score. If we change the OP slightly, and B1 has a chance to score, I'm going to let him take his shot before I call the T for coming onto the court.

And, if you want to pile on, you could get A1 for standing, for entering the court, and then for the tackle. Three indirects on the coach.

Is there any good reason in the OP to go with two T's? In the case there is a very good reason to, and the commentary on the case indicates that's why the case specifies two T's.

But in the OP...why? Sure, we can. But what useful purpose does it serve?

Dude, I'm already on the fence. Don't do this to me just as I'm considering choosing the other side.

Just to throw another wrench or two into the works... :D

Aren't we supposed to be the calm, disinterested, level-headed ones? I can imagine the opposing coach want 2 or 3 or more T's to teach the kid a lesson. (Well, I can't imagine most coaches as knowing the rules well enough to be able to pick out multiple T-worthy infractions, but I digress...)

Shouldn't we, most than everybody involved, set aside our emotion about the outrageous nature of the act and seek a penalty that is both reasonable and expected, and that fits the crime? Aside from the case play already cited and noted as being a very special case, when else do we assign multiple direct T's to a single person for a single act?

For that game the second T doesn't matter if it's flagrant or not. I'm sure almost everyone would have to write a report if this happened and the governing body might consider an additional penalty for the second flagrant technical - maybe not.

Hold on a minute...A1 fouled out, later in the game....so I am assuming second half.

If B1 has a breakaway layup he should be in front of his own bench. That'd be a looonng way for A1 to realize a breakaway, get off the bench, pass 9 other guys, make a tackle before B1 gets a shot?????

:D

I think it matters whether we assess a flagrant foul. Yes, you'll write a report; and the report will contain details of what happened.

If I were reading a report that mentioned a tackle and no official had assessed a flagrant foul, the inconsistency would disturb me: either the call was right and the report exaggerated the contact, or the report was right and somebody should have assessed a flagrant foul.

Don't you agree that we should call the fouls we see, not the fouls necessary to ensure the correct outcome?

Those were my thoughts. I would certainly question whether someone actually got tackled if a flagrant wasn't called if I were reading the game report.

That case play does not involve anyone coming off the bench nor does it involve actual contact. The conduct described in that case play does not affect the player driving to the basket. I don't think you can extrapolate that play to fit this example. You have to take the play as it comes. I'm not going to have a problem if the player with the ball is in the act of shooting counting the basket (if it goes in), the whole point of the play is that the player with the ball isn't allowed to "drive for a score" if a bench person tackles him!

Yeah: its the rule! We can change the scenario and he can either 1) take the guy out without really leaving the bench (assuming the ball handler is near the sideline) or 2) come onto the court, try to take him out, and get juked (sp??)! Your rationale would lead us to believe we wouldn't have a T in either of these cases since we only had one in the original case.

I agree with you, but since we don't know how this played out, I'm trying to determine what it looked like.

Someone else pointed out that it's most likely the 2nd half, which means A1 is either catching B in his backcourt, or A1 is running quite a ways before he tackles him.

The only way live ball/dead ball matters here is to decide whether or not to count the basket if it's shot. If you kill the ball as soon as A1 enters the court, you can't count the basket.

Now, if it happens in the backcourt (most likely given the scenario) it won't matter. If somehow A1 was DQd in the first half and this happens in the first half, it could be different.

If I see him enter the court there's no way I'm stopping a wide open layup for his opponent to call this T. I'm holding the whistle, because I think the intent of 10.4.1E applies. Otherwise, in an end-of-game situation, a defending bench member would need only enter the court to stop a potential fast break for the opponent; forcing free throws and a defended possession rather than a wide-open layup.

If the two events (entering the court and tackling) happen that close together, it's not an issue, because no one takes a fast break shot from that close to the bench.

I'll resubmit my earlier question, very s l o w l y... Name me any other situation where we impose multiple penalties for one act. Yes, there is a rule against entering the court illegally. There is a rule against tackling an opponent. But show me a rule that says we must give two T's.

I'll wait.

What a creative interpretation. :rolleyes: Of course you would have a T in each of those situations.

I submit that the case play and the OP are similar enough that I will apply the principles of the case play to the OP.

Good luck with that. The case play does not contain any principles for you to apply. It is a very specific ruling on a very specific situation. In that specific case, if you do not give the two T's, B benefits from their actions by immediately winning the game. Thus the comment following it: "Two technical fouls must be assessed in this situation. Otherwise, the team committing the infraction would benefit from the act."

Unless the OP involves equally dire and immediate circumstances -- and it does not -- there are no "principles from the case" that apply here.

One illegal act = one penalty.

How about any T that also gets charged indirectly to the head coach?

What do I win? :D