An indirect T as it's usportmanlike conduct from bench personnel.

Cool, just wanted make sure you understood why one infraction is direct while the other is indirect.

Actually, in your little scenario, it is both a direct T on the kid who made the comment and an indirect T on the Coach...

Always nice to make sure you have something correct before trying to make someone else look like they don't know what they are doing.

We had a situation hinging on the bench personnel rule come up in our association late last year.

Team A had lost something like 39 straight games and it was the last game of what was for them a very long season. They were playing their big rivals from the next town, it was senior night and it was a tightly contested and terribly played basketball game.

Half way through the 4th quarter team B started to pull away and the game starts to get a bit out of hand as team A decides if they can’t compete and win they are going to beat the other team up instead. With about 3 min left in the fourth team A’s “assistant coach” gets wacked for protesting a call in which A1 fouled out. After being replaced, and while free throws are being administered the kid formerly known as A1 takes off his jersey and tosses it over his head backwards into the crowd. I don’t think he was trying to be a jackass or anything, but regardless we are shooting two more and that’s the second bench T.

30 seconds later A2 commits his fifth foul three feet from his team’s bench. He knows it’s his 5th and before the foul has been reported to the bench, or anyone has been officially notified that he’s disqualified, he steps off the court sits down at the end of the bench and drops an F bomb.

Now the crew knows it’s the third T, but doesn’t know the rule on when the player becomes “bench personnel”. They discuss it and the best they can come up with is they “think” he’s still an active player because the foul had yet to be reported and the HC had not been notified by the officials that the player was disqualified, but they “knew” that they didn’t want the HC to go because they were concerned the assistant coach wouldn’t be able to control his players and they still had 2+ min. to play.

In the interest of game management they decide not to make it a bench T and the head coach rewards them by substituting 5 JV scrubs to play the last 2:30 seconds.

So applying what I’ve learned in this thread it looks like they made the right “call” even if they weren’t sure of the rule or reasoning. Secondarily how would the bench record that in the book. Would A2 have six PF’s listed?

No, he'd have six total fouls (5 personal fouls and 1 technical foul).

Oh okay :rolleyes:

1. I thought this discussion was about how a T is assessed to a COACH.
2. Since when did we start handing out direct/indirects to team members?


I love my haterz!!

Sigh...

10.4.1 SITUATION A: A technical foul is charged to: (a) a Team A substitute; (b)Team B’s manager; (c) Team A’s athletic trainer; or (d) Team B’s assistant coach. In all cases, the foul is charged because of uncomplimentary remarks addressed to an official. RULING: The individuals in (a), (b), (c) and (d) are all considered to be bench personnel and have violated the rules governing conduct while on the “bench.” A second technical charged to any of these individuals results in disqualification.
In addition to charging a technical to the individuals in all cases, the
technical foul is also charged indirectly to the head coach resulting in the loss of coaching-box privileges. A second technical foul charged directly, or the third technical foul (direct or indirect) charged to the head coach results in similar disqualification and ejection. (10-4-1a)

Like I said - if you're gonna bash on somebody, make sure you are correct first.

I don't think he was incorrect so much as incomplete, but I agree that it's important to be both correct and complete in this discussion.

Wow I feel like I just entered another dimension... The Twilight Zone!

I am fully cognizant of the technical foul rule, who it applies to & how it applies.

All I said was, its an indirect to the coach for bench personel infractions & direct to a coach for allowing a DQd player to re-enter.

If we assess an indirect to a coach isnt it a given that somebody got a T?

If the topic of discussion is how Ts go to coaches, I was neither incorrect nor incomplete. And like Forrest Gump, thats all I have to say about that!

In the context of the thread, tref's statement was perfectly acceptable.

All T's to players/team members are direct....even if we don't normally use the term because it is implied.

Tgif!

Or the reverse as it seems that a DQ'd team member re-entering and then the ball becoming live would require knowledge of when bench personnel officially becomes a player.

I Know, I'm A Bad Boy ...
 

Hey guys. Don't forget. If it's pregame, and if they're in the layup line, no matter who they are, or how they're dressed, or whether they're listed in the book, or not, then they're all bench personnel. It's true. It's true. You can look it up.

...see what you started COACH DJ! :D

Getting here late...but just had to post.

I got a call from my assigner to call the AD of the school that this situation actually happened to! The AD wanted an explanation...(his coach actually pointed out that the opposing player playing had already fouled out)...and he wasn't sure it was administered correctly.

I hate to say...but, it was not administered correctly.

As one poster said..."this situation does not happen often"... so I have some "forgiveness" in my heart for the 3 whistle crew on this game.;)

The R that was on the game is a good Varsity Official...the U1 and U2 are up and comers. (in fact the R for that game was on our 3 whistle crew last night officiating a game with the number 1 rated 4A team in the state....Davis vs. Richland)

What happened?

Home Team player A1 had received his 5th foul. The book did NOT notify the officials...therefore, they did not notify the Home Coach.

In the 4th quarter...Visitor Team player B1 fouled A2 in the act of shooting....ball went in. A2 gets one shot.

As the players were lining up... V Coach told officials that he thought A1 had already fouled out. (He was correct)

Officials got together, and assesed H Coach an INDIRECT T.

Officials lined up V player to shoot 2 Technical foul shots...then they lined up H player, A2, to shoot his one foul shot. (They later said they thought it was a POI deal)

They now know they got it wrong. So they OWN that rule now!

They now know they should NOT have assesed a T to the Coach...and if they did (if he had been notified of the disqualification) then it would have been a DIRECT T not and INDIRECT T. (And since he already had a DIRECT T HE WOULD HAVE BEEN EJECTED)

They also know they shot the FT's in the wrong order.(If there were to be T FT's)

The "and 1" with the lane cleared...then go shoot the 2 T FT's for V team, lane cleared, ball at division line.

There shouldn't have been T FT's though...so just get the player out (that had 5 fouls) and shoot the "and 1" with players in the lane.

Visiting Team won by 2 or 3 points...they made one of two on the T FT's.

It was a cluster...but, as I said...these guys own that rule now.

DJ...is that about what you heard happened?

sidenote: DJ's dad is an assistant on the V Team and he probably has no idea who "RookieDude" is...:p