Technical Fouls

[Rob1968]

Quote: "6. Once a team member goes to the scorer's table to report, he/she becomes a substitute and is no longer bench personnel, so any T committed by that individual would not be charged to the head coach."

Nevada, is there a reference for this? The statement seems to put the substitute in a third status, somewhere in between players and bench personnel. I've always understood that the actions of anyone associated with the team, and not currently designated as a player, would come under the bench personnel status, and the responsibility of the head coach.

Let's suppose that the substitute does/says something that warrants a T. Are we to understand that there would be no indirect T assessed to the head coach?

[Indianaref]

The Head coach is responsible for his/her own conduct and behavior, as well as substitutes, disqualified team members and all other bench personnel.

[Adam]

The chart is very specific that the head coach does not get an indirect when a sub enters the court without being beckoned or without reporting. (10-2 and penalty chart) The wording at the beginning of 10-4 indicates that the substitutes' behavior, however, could warrant an indirect for the coach. There really isn't much clarity on this beyond that, however.

[Indianaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The chart is very specific that the head coach does not get an indirect when a sub enters the court without being beckoned or without reporting. (10-2 and penalty chart) The wording at the beginning of 10-4 indicates that the substitutes' behavior, however, could warrant an indirect for the coach. There really isn't much clarity on this beyond that, however.

Yes, this is what I meant to convey. I was in a hurry.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The chart is very specific that the head coach does not get an indirect when a sub enters the court without being beckoned or without reporting. (10-2 and penalty chart) The wording at the beginning of 10-4 indicates that the substitutes' behavior, however, could warrant an indirect for the coach. There really isn't much clarity on this beyond that, however.

Correct. When they violation the provisions of the substitution rules by improperly entering the game, the coach is not charge. But for other actions such as unsportsmanlike conduct, there is no basis for excluding the coach.

[bainsey]

Ultimately, I just break the T's down into the five categories: Team, Player, Substitute, Bench, and Head Coach. The last two always result in the coach losing the box (which our state has). The bench always results in indirects.

From there, you just have to know which foul goes to which category, and why. (Reasons tend to jog the memory.) Writing a brief list of each helps.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The OP was looking for "a more user friendly version".

What you've created seems just the opposite of that, to me.

Ain't that the d@mn truth.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The chart is very specific that the head coach does not get an indirect when a sub enters the court without being beckoned or without reporting. (10-2 and penalty chart) The wording at the beginning of 10-4 indicates that the substitutes' behavior, however, could warrant an indirect for the coach. There really isn't much clarity on this beyond that, however.

And that exception exists because the coach can hardly be expected to be responsible for the sub enters without being beckoned.