Maybe get Game Management to help you out on this one...

that is if the coach won't leave...have him removed.

I was under the impression that this was because Valentine talked to the media or Referee Magazine, not for giving a third T. That was a long time ago and I will not claim to know all the details, but this interview was rather extensive. And at that time there was even less transparency than there is today.

Peace

Conversely, is there anything in the rulebook prohibiting it? Seems to me the rulebook gives us the authority to judge when actions are unsporting and to penalize with a technical foul. It doesn't limit our authority by telling us we are limited to 2 direct per person.

If we were limited I think it would be written that we are limited.

The article actually states that he was censured for the 2nd technical. Not the 3rd.

Although now that I'm re reading it, the article could mean Valentine's 2nd technical, which may have been the 3rd technical. Or it could mean the 2nd technical overall and not the 3rd as I interpreted.

Someone should have proofread that article :D

Quote from the story:

"That didn’t set well with the 40-year-old Valentine, a man who started officiating basketball in 1978 and who by 1979 worked his first Division I game." (emphasis added)

I think it is written that way, because it clearly states that we hit the coach with a T when an ejected player continues to be unsporting. Not the player because he is no longer a participant.

I think if we could hit the ejected coach, by rule, it would say somewhere that we assess any additional technicals to the bench or assistant coach.

I believe NCAA directly prohibits a third T, but NFHS does not. AFAIC, he's the HC until he leaves the court. If A5 gets two and then pops off from the bench, aren't you giving him #3?

But why access them to the assistance coach or the bench? There isn't any additional penalty. They already lost the coaching box, the 3rd technical is going to the count toward the bonus, there will be 2 free throws and the ball awarded opposite the division line.

So the only thing it might add is if it was the assistant coach's 3rd indirect, he would also be ejected, but that doesn't seem to be the intent of the rule. The assistant didn't do much to earn that indirect technical and then we would probably have further escalation as we tell the assistant he's also ejected. So it's just charged to the head.

I'm not positive either way, I just don't see any limit.

We don't whack the coach though, we whack the player even if he is DQed and if the coach has been notified of the DQ, it is also an indirect to the coach.

In NCAA, a coach can get a maximum of 2 Class A technical fouls. So if you eject him with a second T, you can't T him again. This rule change was a result of the Knight/Valentine incident that was already mentioned in the thread.

Someone here recently made the case that an ejected coach becomes a team supporter, and utilizing 2-8-1, a team technical foul could be issued for any team supporter that interrupts the game.

True story!

That's a weak argument since the coach is not even supposed to be in the gym, let alone support the team any longer.

I was hoping you'd chime in.

So, could an assistant receive a Class A technical for failing to get the HC out of there after an ejection? Or are we looking at a forfeit situation.

I remember the play and the article -- it was clearly a suspension for the third technical foul. The Referee article came out in 2001, well after the suspension and the incident was over. Back in 1985 when Bob Knight was ejected during the chair throwing game, it took 3 technicals to be ejected and the chair throw, I think, was only technical number 2. Number 3 was called a bit later and the AD had to be called to get Knight off the court.

Valentine is still a Big Dog who still works in the Big 10.

IMHO, no.

I believe so.