Technical after ejection?

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Toren

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

That about sums it up.