Technical after ejection?

[gdudik]

I have been told that if a coach refuses to leave a gym after he has been ejected, he can be charged with trespassing.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Toren

Conversely, is there anything in the rulebook prohibiting it?

If it's not illegal, it's legal.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Brad

Is it permissible under NFHS or NCAA rules to issue a technical foul to a coach after he has been ejected?

What if he refuses to leave the court? What timeframe do you allow and what behavior do you permit?

Brad:

I presume that you are asking this question as an informational question for some of our newer officials?

MTD, Sr.

[ga314ref]

Originally Posted by Brad

I understand that you can have a forfeit. My question is -- is that your only option?

If you have ejected a coach does he get full reign to do whatever he wants while he is leaving? Can he MF you? Incite the crowd? Run around the court???

How long does he get to do this? Are you *prohibited* from issuing additional technical fouls to him because he is ejected? Is your only recourse a forfeit?

..but he will have very little time to hang around. Either game management (we have to have an officials game manager at all of our games) or the LEO at the game will escort him out. It's my understanding that our coaches are fined for direct technicals, and may be suspended from games. An ejection costs a player two games. It may be the same for a coach, along with a fine.

[Nevadaref]

NCAA - no 3rd technical foul is permitted according to the rules.
NFHS - each and every unsporting action is subject to a technical foul. There is no limit. I recommend forfeiting the game if more than three need to be issued to the head coach as you have obviously waited long enough for the coach to depart and instead he has offended again.

Let me also point out that there are several posts in this thread which are incorrect by rule, such as Toren's that mentions charging indirects to an assistant coach, and some others which are just shameful--those which state not to assess a T for a departing coach MF'ing your partner. At the HS level that conduct must be penalized.

[Adam]

I'm with Nevada on this one; other than the "shameful" part.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Brad:

I presume that you are asking this question as an informational question for some of our newer officials?

MTD, Sr.

I asked it to provoke discussion and because the situation happened in a game recently (not to me) and I'm not quite sure what I think!

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

NCAA - no 3rd technical foul is permitted according to the rules.
NFHS - each and every unsporting action is subject to a technical foul. There is no limit. I recommend forfeiting the game if more than three need to be issued to the head coach as you have obviously waited long enough for the coach to depart and instead he has offended again.

Let me also point out that there are several posts in this thread which are incorrect by rule, such as Toren's that mentions charging indirects to an assistant coach, and some others which are just shameful--those which state not to assess a T for a departing coach MF'ing your partner. At the HS level that conduct must be penalized.

Which part of my comment is shameful? You must have misread.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Toren

Which part of my comment is shameful? You must have misread.

He just said yours was incorrect by rule, the shameful comments came from others.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Toren

Which part of my comment is shameful? You must have misread.

I think he said your comment was incorrect & my comment was the shameful one

But I dont think he read Brads question clearly:

Originally Posted by Brad

Let's say he starts to leave immediately, and as he does he walks by your partner and says, "You're a cheating MFer!!!" ... Do you just automatically forfeit the game right there?

If my partner (who he said it DIRECTLY to) doesnt whack him why in the hell am I coming in to whack him

Pregame - "Handle your own business with coaches, but if he disrespects one of us behind our backs, make sure we have our partners back."

Most times, if its not Nevadas way its the wrong way... or is that ALL the time

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tref

I think he said your comment was incorrect & my comment was the shameful one

But I dont think he read Brads question clearly:



If my partner (who he said it DIRECTLY to) doesnt whack him why in the hell am I coming in to whack him

Pregame - "Handle your own business with coaches, but if he disrespects one of us behind our backs, make sure we have our partners back."

I don't think that was the point of Brad's question, but he can correct me if I'm wrong. The point was do you call the third T. So, your partner has just given the coach his second T. On his way off, he tells you your partner has questionable heritage along with a few other vices. Do you call the T?

College, you can't.

High school, you can. There's no prohibition, nor is there a "limit" on how many fouls (of any stripe) you can call on a particular person.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

, and some others which are just shameful--those which state not to assess a T for a departing coach MF'ing your partner. At the HS level that conduct must be penalized.

Read it again. He says it to the partner, about the partner. I'm not coming in from some other area of the court to T him for that...my partner certainly can if he/she chooses to.

If the departing coach says it to ME about my partner - then yes I am giving him a 3rd. But as I said before - he will have to yell it because I will be nowhere near him as he is leaving. Get away from him and his path to the door.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

He just said yours was incorrect by rule, the shameful comments came from others.

It's strange that he woud say mine is incorrect, when I said I don't see anything in the rule book that limits our ability to hand out a technical, so I think we don't have a limit.

But after re reading Nevada's post, I'm reading it as referring to the fact that I said in my earlier post why would you need to charge a 3rd technical to the head coach as indirectly to the assistant coach.

Where was I wrong there? Rules reference please.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Toren

It's strange that he woud say mine is incorrect, when I said I don't see anything in the rule book that limits our ability to hand out a technical, so I think we don't have a limit.

I'm pretty sure he also said we have no limit.

So If I'm incorrect by rule, then he is also incorrect.

He was referring to this post, I think:

Originally Posted by Toren

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.

Why he picked on this, I don't know. But I do agree it's not just outside the intent of the rule, but it's also a difficult stretch of the rule itself. Once the HC is DQd, he doesn't become part of the bench subject to the AC's control.

[Toren]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

He was referring to this post, I think:



Why he picked on this, I don't know. But I do agree it's not just outside the intent of the rule, but it's also a difficult stretch of the rule itself. Once the HC is DQd, he doesn't become part of the bench subject to the AC's control.

I see, but my point was why would we give an indirect to an assistant? That it didn't add any value and only complicated the issue.

Seems we're all on the same page, apparently Nevada didn't like my wording.