T during chseagle's game
 

Ok...I looked on our association's arbiter website, and found out who the officials were for the game that chseagle was at the table.

(Thread: "Technical called during Free Throw Administration")
http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...istration.html

chseagle said that s/he thought the V officials had called a DOG T on Team B because player B1 had entered a FT lane spot after the FT shooter A1 had been given the ball...or something to that effect.

Here is what actually happened...according to the R on the game.

Player A1 had just shot his 1st of 2 FTs...Team B had a sub at the table, and the R, which was at tableside, beckoned the Team B sub into the game.

The Lead official then bounced pass the ball to FT shooter A1. The R then heard the Team B Coach say, to the player that had just come out of the game and was at the bench... "No, I don't want you to come out of the game...I wanted so and so to come out of the game...get back in there!"

So, the kid...whom is now bench personnel...rushes back onto the court (without being beckoned) and tells the other player to get out.

The R sees this and calls a Technical.

Now...pretend you are the R...administer this situation...

Technical on the sub for entering without being beckoned.

RookieDude,

Thanks for the clarification on that. As I saw it, it looked as if the coach was asking for a switch on personnel for the lane.

I kept thinking to myself I was missing some detail but couldn't remember.

Easy
 

Assuming that A1 hadn't completed his 2nd FT, I would clear the lane and let him complete his 2nd FT. Then we would go done to the other end to shoot 2 and then administer the Team B throwin at the division line opposite the table.

Except that the T was on team B...

Oops! My Bad
 

LOL. You're right. So we don't go to the other end to shoot the FT's for the T, but we still clear the lane for the 2nd FT and then shoot the T's with the ball at the division for a Team A throwin. I guess it wasn't so easy after all! :eek:

Did the crew assess an indirect to the head coach?

Yes

No your not! I was!
 

I forgot that team B got the T. Rockyroad already brought my mistake to my attention. But thanks for bringing it up again! LOL! :)

Beating dead horses is an important aspect of this game.

Oh, it was easy...you just read it too fast!:p

Ok
 

Consider it glue!

Was he mystified that the table didn't pick up on this better?

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

If so, I agree.

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.

I'd have it as a sub T.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

A2 and A3 are not equally eligible to be subs and therefore carry different status.

Disagree. The rule is the same; they are subs. If they come running in from the table without being beckoned, they get the same penalty. I highly doubt the intent of the rules requires us to split this hair.

The case play already posted makes no mention of whether the sub was immediately eligible or not. Personally, I think it's a mistake to pin this on the coach (the OP), but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I think the error is understandable since the official actually heard the coach say "get out there."

So, I'm to take from this statement, that you would charge the coach with one indirect technical foul in my situation?

My response was basically following up on TTaylor's a few posts before, namely the first sentence below:

"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."

However, I agree with his finish, and Snaq's comment (and, I believe, others') about splitting hairs. Not worth it here.

To the letter of the book, however, one would have to realize A2 and A3 aren't the same, and coach would get the indirect whack. (A2 wouldn't be allowed to shoot technical free throws if his team were awarded any after all, would he? :D )

The T isn't for "eligible subs" entering without being beckoned, it's for "subs". I think the "letter of the book" makes them all equal.

Or at least the spirit of the book. Agreed. ;)

+1

Sorry it took so long to get back with my game report...been pretty busy around here lately.

For starters...good discussion on whether or not to call a bench T and therefore an indirect T on the Coach. When the R first described the event to me...I thought it probably could just be a T on the "sub"...but, as stated, he could sell me the indirect T on the Coach because the Coach told the player to get right back in the game.

I asked the R if he seatbelted the coach...and he stated that he did not. We will have to talk about that over a refreshment sometime.;)

OK...as far as chseagle is concerned...him and his wife run both the clock and 35 second shot clock.

They did a fine job. There was only one incident of the wrong player being put on the scoreboard for a foul...but, was quickly taken care of with help from the official book. A couple shot clock things but, otherwise went as smooth as could be expected.

These people are very enthusiastic and special. They met the challenges head on...I have no problem with this team at this school.

Thanks for the vote of confidence!!
 

When it comes to shot clock, I can't help it if I have a trigger finger, even the Girls' HC (he was my coach when I played, as well as my XC & Track coach) gives me a bad time about it :D

Thanks, Rookiedude, it was fun to work with you again. Hopefully we'll have more games together.

We'll Be Sending You Your Secret Decoder Ring Soon ...
 

Welcome to the Forum. Let's get one thing straight right away. Never, and I mean never, ask Mark Padgett what the first rule of officiating is. Never.

Pretty soon we're going to have more table crew members on the Forum than officials. Maybe Jelsoft Enterprises can start a separate Table Crew Forum.

[QUOTE=BillyMac;653499][QUOTE=CHSLadyEagle;653496]When it comes to shot clock, I can't help it if I have a trigger finger.This was a setup btw.

Already gave the warning, as she periodically reads the forum with me.

Maybe she can help keep your wild antics under control. :D

Unfortunately, it's now a rarity when we work the table together, normally it's one of us in one gym with the other in the other gym, especially with having the Boys' Shot Clock now.

When I did Varsity Scoreboard/Timer the other night, I minded my Ps & Qs. Although I did get a bit of a laugh when the request that the "X" be placed in front of the official scorer was requested & followed through.

Concerning the secondary gym, it's more like I have to keep my dad's wild antics under control as he's been nominated the shot clock operator for the secondary gym.

Also have to keep the scorebooks remaining neutral or focused on their tasks.