Technical after ejection?
 

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?

Rule 5-4-1

The note under 10-5-4 says failure to comply with the rules of ejection may result in the game being forfeited.

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?

Rule 5-4-1
The referee may also forfeit a game if any player, team member, bench personnel or coach fails to comply with any technical-foul penalty, or repeatedly commits technical-foul infractions or other acts which make a travesty of the game.

So yes, you can continue to give the coach technicals, but beyond one additional one, why would you continue to do that? Isn't the coach doing exactly what this rule says he shouldn't do? I understand you don't want to forfeits games, nobody does, but what is your other recourse? Sit there and do nothing? Coaches do not control the game, we do.

As far as how long he gets to do this, he doesn't get to do any of those actions. He must leave the court immediately. He can't even in a sporting manner, talk to his team anymore.

I dont see where in the book it says we have the authority to throw a 3rd to an ejected coach.
We all know that if a player is tossed, his actions are charged to the head coach in the form of a technical foul. But unfortunately, I dont see where we can hit a coach with a 3rd, by rule. Perhaps we could charge it to the team/bench...

Minor comment here - actually the quote is "Be in control of the game without controlling the game". The actions of the players control the game. We just keep the game under control. As I said - minor grammatical point.

My opinion:

Give him one more. Then give the assistant coach (or whoever) 30 seconds to get the head coach out of the gym.

You leave if he doesn't. Leave the decision on forfeit or continue up to the league.

That doesn't address the issue of giving technicals after a coach is ejected, but says that you can forfeit a game if the players/bench personnel/coaches repeatedly commit technical fouls.

Forfeiting a game is a big deal. Giving one additional technical foul to a coach who is behaving in an unsporting manner as he is leaving the court after being ejected isn't.

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?

How about, officials run the game & coaches run their mounths -errrrr- run their teams?

I think you are probably right. Seems like coaches have a lot of leeway once they get ejected to go nuts.

I do remember Ted Valentine giving Bobby Knight a 3rd tech after he was already ejected years back in an Indiana game.

I'd eat that one, as we've already made our point. See ya later, bye!

+1

No I do not T him or forfeit the game for that...I do include that information in my ejection report to the State and the local association - and that report goes to his/her Principal and AD.

What I will do is make sure I am nowhere near him or his path out of the gym so that if he wants to say that to me, everyone in the gym will hear. There will be no "he said, he said" issue involved.

I remember when Ted Valentine gave a *third* technical to Bob Knight in 1998 and was censured for it and was not allowed to work any non-conference games involving Big 10 teams during the 1998-99 season.

Say Good Knight

I don't know if this was a Big 10 rule, completely made up, or the NCAA policy. I remember watching that game live on an NCAA package I had at the time. In my opinion, O'Neill and Hightower threw Valentine under the bus unlike any other situation I'd ever seen.

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.

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

Confucius Say ...
 

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

Brad:

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

MTD, Sr.

He will not get a 3rd T...
 

..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.

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.

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

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! :)

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. :D

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

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 :rolleyes:

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 :D

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.

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.

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.

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.

That about sums it up. ;)

I have been reading the posts and now have the time to join the discussion.


A short history lesson first. There was a time in the "ancient days" when the penalty for a Non-Intentional TF or Non-Flagrant TF was one FT and the penalty for an ITF or FTF was two free throws. Therefore, prior to the NFHS and NCAA adopting the Direct and Indirect, and different Classes of TFs, respectifully, the disqualificiation/ejection rule (remember that Players/Substitutes are disqualified, HCs are disqualfied and ejected, and all other Bench Personnel are ejected, except that all Players/Substitutes and Student BP are required to stay on the Bench under adult supervision per NFHS Rules) was quite simple: The second TF against a player, HC, or BP was, by definition, a Flagrant TF.

Furthermore, one needs to remember that: (1) a Player/Substitute can be disqaulified by: (a) five fouls (PF and TF combined), (b) two TFS, or (c) a single FPF or FTF; (2) the HC can be disqualified and ejected by: (a) two DTFs, (b) any combination of three DTFs and ITFs, or (c) a single FTF; and (3) BP are ejected by: (a) two DTFs or (b) a single FTF.


Now lets get to the crux of the argument. The current NCAA Rules are worded such that it can be interpreted only one way: No one can receive more than two TFs that are of the type that can be counted toward disqualification/ejection. As far as Players/Substitutes are concerned, if one is already disqualified by a single FPF or FTF, any subsequent TF could be judged to be Flagrant in and of itself and no further TFs should be charged. And has far as HCs and BP are concerned, once they have been disqualified and ejected, or ejected, no further TFs should be charged, meaning HC's first TF is FTF, there is not need to charge him with a second TF; instead, address his subsequent behavior using the rules at hand, meaning, the 'new' HC had better get the 'old' HC down the floor and out the door or everybody just might be going home early. And of course do not forget to file your game reports in a timely manner.


That said, from conversations that I have over the years with people who are even more powerful connections than me, that while the NFHS Rules are not as clear as the NCAA Rules, the implication is that one would handle a game played under NFHS Rules the same way one would handle a game played in NCAA Rules.


Boy my brain is tired.

MTD, Sr.