What is the proper penalty and admin?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by pizanno

NCAA Men 10-5.1.h

(Men) CLASS A Unsporting Technical Infractions
Art. 1. A player or substitute committing an unsportsmanlike act including, but not limited to, the following:
h. Leaving the playing court and going into the stands when a fight may break out or has broken out (flagrant non-contact infraction).

NCAA Women 10-4.1.f and/or i
Bench Technical Foul
f. Inciting undesirable crowd reactions
i. Refusing to occupy the team bench to which the team was assigned or to occupy the location for a timeout or before any extra period as described in Rule 4-7.2.

PENALTY: Two free throws shall be awarded to any member of the offended team.

Since he said 3rd quarter, we have to assume this isn't an NCAA game.

[zm1283]

10-5-5
Technical charged directly to head coach
2 FTs for opposing team and throw-in at division line

[tjones1]

I agree, 10-5-5.

But, seems odd as if you apply that rule then the bench player can still play in the game, right?

[Adam]

I think you could invoke 4-18 or 4-19-4.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think you could invoke 4-18 or 4-19-4.

But can you charge the HC directly with the technical AND the player with a flagrant technical for the same infraction? Or would you consider the player leaving the bench in the first place the HC's direct technical and if the player fights, he gets a separate flagrant technical?

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I think you could invoke 4-18 or 4-19-4.

Snaqwells, my initial thought is this apply to players. I more incline to go with 10-5-5.

[tjones1]

Anyone else nervous as to why NV is posting this situation? Ha Ha.

Probably won't be able to sleep tonight.

I stick by my ruling in 10-5-5...seems pretty straight forward. But like I said it appears the bench player can still play in the game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Anyone else nervous as to why NV is posting this situation? Ha Ha.

Probably won't be able to sleep tonight.

I stick by my ruling in 10-5-5...seems pretty straight forward. But like I said it appears the bench player can still play in the game.

I was wondering the same thing.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by truerookie

Snaqwells, my initial thought is this apply to players. I more incline to go with 10-5-5.

10-4-1d,f or g.
You're right, 10-5-5 is for the coach, and it would be a stretch to boot the player when you're only applying the T to the coach.

My first instinct is to hit the player directly (coach indirectly) using 10-4-1d or 10-4-4; making it flagrant based on 4-18 or 4-19-4.

[Bishopcolle]

Originally Posted by snaqwells

10-4-1d,f or g.
You're right, 10-5-5 is for the coach, and it would be a stretch to boot the player when you're only applying the t to the coach.

My first instinct is to hit the player directly (coach indirectly) using 10-4-1d or 10-4-4; making it flagrant based on 4-18 or 4-19-4.

+1

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I agree, 10-5-5.

But, seems odd as if you apply that rule then the bench player can still play in the game, right?

Originally Posted by zm1283

But can you charge the HC directly with the technical AND the player with a flagrant technical for the same infraction? Or would you consider the player leaving the bench in the first place the HC's direct technical and if the player fights, he gets a separate flagrant technical?

Originally Posted by tjones1

Anyone else nervous as to why NV is posting this situation? Ha Ha.

Probably won't be able to sleep tonight.

I stick by my ruling in 10-5-5...seems pretty straight forward. But like I said it appears the bench player can still play in the game.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

10-4-1d,f or g.
You're right, 10-5-5 is for the coach, and it would be a stretch to boot the player when you're only applying the T to the coach.

My first instinct is to hit the player directly (coach indirectly) using 10-4-1d or 10-4-4; making it flagrant based on 4-18 or 4-19-4.

You guys are getting to know me too well.

I believe that this situation highlights a problem with 10-4-5 and the new 10-5-5 and its interpretation along with their associated penalties.

Give new case play 10.5.5 Situation B, which appears on page 4 of the 2010-11 Case Book, a quick read. The stated penalty is a direct T to the HC, 2FTs and the ball for the opponents. No penalty at all for the offending team member!

I believe that the NFHS kicked the heck out of this one. I agree with those of you who posted that a direct T (likely flagrant) to the individual offending team member and an indirect T to the HC, using 10-4-5 as rules support, is the better penalty, but the NFHS doesn't think so.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

10-4-1d,f or g.
You're right, 10-5-5 is for the coach, and it would be a stretch to boot the player when you're only applying the T to the coach.

My first instinct is to hit the player directly (coach indirectly) using 10-4-1d or 10-4-4; making it flagrant based on 4-18 or 4-19-4.

1) 10-4-1(d) only applies to opponents, not fans.
2) As for 10-4-1(f), there is no mention of the team member inciting the crowd
2) 10-4-1(g) isn't really relevant imo as they specifically said to "confront" with no mention of a fight.

Agree that the best way imo to deal with the team member is to just give him a generic "T" under the generic wording of 10-4-1..."commit an unsporting foul". Making it flagrant is reasonable in my mind also. And the head coach has to get an indirect "T" also because he was responsible for that team member on the bench. Going into the stands to confront a fan sureashell is an unsporting foul imo. There's precedent for ruling exactly like that also, as in SITUATION 9 from the 2008-09 Rules Interpretations. In that one a team member fought with a spectator at half time. The RULING was to charge the team member with a flagrant "T" and the head coach with an indirect "T". The situations are almost similar.

And also, in SITUATION 12 of the 2005-06 interps, you have the classic of a team member on the bench coming onto the floor to block a shot. The Ruling in that one was 2 technical fouls charged to the team member. Of course, in this particular ruling there is also no mention of giving the head coach an indirect "T" along with each of the "t"s given to the team member.

http://forum.officiating.com/basketb...s-archive.html

Not very much consistency in the various rulings by the FED imo.