T during chseagle's game

[Adam]

Bench T for entering the court, I wouldn't consider him a sub. The coach earned this one for telling him to get back out there.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tjones1

The crew called a bench technical for entering the court, not a substitute technical, correct?

If so, I agree with this call.

I'd have it as a sub T.

[tjones1]

Ok, but not a legal substitute, no?

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Ok, but not a legal substitute, no?

He's not a legal sub, since no time had run off the clock since he left the court. That said, it doesn't really matter in terms of the penalty - even a legal substitute is bench personnel until they are beckoned onto the court. This is covered in the technical foul penalty summary on page 71 of the rule book - direct T to sub/bench personnel + counts as a team foul + indirect T to the coach.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

He's not a legal sub, since no time had run off the clock since he left the court. That said, it doesn't really matter in terms of the penalty - even a legal substitute is bench personnel until they are beckoned onto the court. This is covered in the technical foul penalty summary on page 71 of the rule book - direct T to sub/bench personnel + counts as a team foul + indirect T to the coach.

This isn't quite correct. A sub tech has its own category in that summary, and it does not include an indirect for the coach. Bob's right, it should probably have been a sub T with no indirect.

However, I can certainly understand the thought process when the official hears the coach instruct his player to go in. It just "feels" like he ought to get hit with it. I think the intent of the rule is to not punish a coach for something a sub does when he sends him to the table; but this is a bit different than 99.93443% of all sub Ts, in that the coach literally isntructed his player to go break the rule.

That said, rulz iz rulz.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

He's not a legal sub, since no time had run off the clock since he left the court. That said, it doesn't really matter in terms of the penalty - even a legal substitute is bench personnel until they are beckoned onto the court. This is covered in the technical foul penalty summary on page 71 of the rule book - direct T to sub/bench personnel + counts as a team foul + indirect T to the coach.

Right. Well, it does matter in terms of the penalty...

If you call a substitute technical for not be beckoned, it's charged to that sub but not indirectly to the head coach. 10-2

If you call a bench technical for entering the court without permission, it's charged to the sub/bench personnel and charged indirectly to the head coach. 10-4

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

This isn't quite correct. A sub tech has its own category in that summary, and it does not include an indirect for the coach. Bob's right, it should probably have been a sub T with no indirect.

However, I can certainly understand the thought process when the official hears the coach instruct his player to go in. It just "feels" like he ought to get hit with it. I think the intent of the rule is to not punish a coach for something a sub does when he sends him to the table; but this is a bit different than 99.93443% of all sub Ts, in that the coach literally isntructed his player to go break the rule.

That said, rulz iz rulz.

So where is the line drawn between the two (10-2-2 & 10-4-2)?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tjones1

So where is the line drawn between the two (10-2-2 & 10-4-2)?

Somewhere amidst the judgment of the calling official, I think. As the coach's intent was to have him on the court playing, I think you have to go with a sub T, but I wouldn't even really question a partner who went with the bench T.

[jdw3018]

I agree with Snaqwells. My interpretation is that 'entering the court' would be a player stepping into the action from the bench or running onto the court to celebrate/complain or anything other than becoming a legitimate player.

A player going onto the court to replace another player is a substitute not being beckoned in my book.

That said, I can also see a point of view that any player who comes directly from the bench to the court without attempting to check in falls into the former category.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I agree with Snaqwells. My interpretation is that 'entering the court' would be a player stepping into the action from the bench or running onto the court to celebrate/complain or anything other than becoming a legitimate player.

A player going onto the court to replace another player is a substitute not being beckoned in my book.

That said, I can also see a point of view that any player who comes directly from the bench to the court without attempting to check in falls into the former latter category.

10.2.1 Situation B
Team A subsitute No. 24: (a) reports to the scorer, but enters the court without being beckoned; or (b) goes directly from the bench and onto the court without being beckoned.

Ruling: One technical foul is charged to No. 24 in (a) and (b). In (b), even though No. 24 failed to comply with both requirements, only one foul is charged.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

I agree with Snaqwells. My interpretation is that 'entering the court' would be a player stepping into the action from the bench or running onto the court to celebrate/complain or anything other than becoming a legitimate player.

A player going onto the court to replace another player is a substitute not being beckoned in my book.

That said, I can also see a point of view that any player who comes directly from the bench to the court without attempting to check in falls into the former category.

Once he left the court he became bench personnel and was not eligible to return until time had run off the clock, so he is not a legal substitute. From the OP's description he simply rushed back onto the court - didn't report to the table or wait for anything. IMHO this would make it a bench technical.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by tjones1

10.2.1 Situation B
Team A subsitute No. 24: (a) reports to the scorer, but enters the court without being beckoned; or (b) goes directly from the bench and onto the court without being beckoned.

Ruling: One technical foul is charged to No. 24 in (a) and (b). In (b), even though No. 24 failed to comply with both requirements, only one foul is charged.

Good case play. This is why I should carry my case book with me always.

I actually agree with the case book. I was attempting to say that I could see the argument that a player coming directly from the bench is a bench personnel tech rather than a substitute tech, which was the former.

However, it appears that is clearly the wrong interpretation. Glad my "gut" is right.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Once he left the court he became bench personnel and was not eligible to return until time had run off the clock, so he is not a legal substitute. From the OP's description he simply rushed back onto the court - didn't report to the table or wait for anything. IMHO this would make it a bench technical.

Would your opinion change if he'd gone to the table first and then ran onto the court? I don't think the fact that he's not eligible to return at that point is relevant.

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Would your opinion change if he'd gone to the table first and then ran onto the court? I don't think the fact that he's not eligible to return at that point is relevant.

Nope, wouldn't change my opinion. If he's not eligible to re-enter, then he's still bench personnel, not a substitute. That said, I have no problem whether the official chooses to assess a bench technical or substitute technical - justification can be made for either position.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

Nope, wouldn't change my opinion. If he's not eligible to re-enter, then he's still bench personnel, not a substitute. That said, I have no problem whether the official chooses to assess a bench technical or substitute technical - justification can be made for either position.

Hmm...interesting. Can see that point of view, though I'm not yet swayed.

Before a throw-in, A1 enters for A2. Upon the ball being placed at the disposal of the thrower, both A2 and A3 head to the table to check in.

A violation occurs before the throw-in ends. Both A2 and A3 immediately run onto the court without being beckoned. Official calls technical fouls on both.

Your position would be that the T on A2 is for bench personnel entering the court without authorization and that the T on A3 is a substitute technical for entering the court without being beckoned?