Technical Fouls???

[djtraver]

Coach receives a technical foul early in the game. Later, a player commits his 5th foul and is permitted to continue play. Once the books notice the problem, player is deemed disqualified. A technical was assessed to the book. Question is, does the technical go towards the coach as his second? It was called as a technical on the book and the coach was not disqualified.

[just another ref]

No technical on anybody. If the coach was not notified, the player was not disqualified.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by just another ref

No technical on anybody. If the coach was not notified, the player was not disqualified.

This, and most states allow for direct and indirect T's for situations like this. In our state a coach walks after two direct T's, or any combination of 3 direct and indirect t's.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Duffman

This, and most states allow for direct and indirect T's for situations like this.

Situations like what?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Duffman

This, and most states allow for direct and indirect T's for situations like this. In our state a coach walks after two direct T's, or any combination of 3 direct and indirect t's.

Duffman:

You are missing the point. Under both NFHS and NCAA Rules, no one gets charged with a TF for what happened in the OP. And as far as your state and a HC receiving two Direct TFs or any combination of three Direct or Indirect TFs, that is a NFHS rule and not particular to your state.

What state are you in?

MTD, Sr.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Duffman:

You are missing the point. Under both NFHS and NCAA Rules, no one gets charged with a TF for what happened in the OP. And as far as your state and a HC receiving two Direct TFs or any combination of three Direct or Indirect TFs, that is a NFHS rule and not particular to your state.

What state are you in?

MTD, Sr.

Confusion most of the time. I wasn't aware that was a uniform rule under the NFHS.

I understood the point, that in the OP no-one gets charged with a tech.

The OP also asked if there was a T in this case would it go toward the coach as his second. I was simply trying to say in the event it was a t it would count toward the coach, but it would be an indirect which wouldn't get him tossed as I saw no other point of asking the question. Unless you are aware of some sort of T that DOESN'T count toward a coach as either a direct or indirect.

[deecee]

why would it count towards the coach? and whats the point to answering a hypothetical with an incorrect rule?

the answer is that IT WILL NEVER BE A T and therefore you dont have to worry about it being charged to the coach. If you DO assess a T then you are WRONG and you might as well assign it to the coach, the mascot and even the grandparents in row 5.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Confusion most of the time. I wasn't aware that was a uniform rule under the NFHS.

I understood the point, that in the OP no-one gets charged with a tech.

The OP also asked if there was a T in this case would it go toward the coach as his second. I was simply trying to say in the event it was a t it would count toward the coach, but it would be an indirect which wouldn't get him tossed as I saw no other point of asking the question. Unless you are aware of some sort of T that DOESN'T count toward a coach as either a direct or indirect.

I don't want to come across too harsh, but you should really spend some time in the rule book. If you're going to toss a coach, it would be a good idea to know why.

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Confusion most of the time. I wasn't aware that was a uniform rule under the NFHS.

I understood the point, that in the OP no-one gets charged with a tech.

The OP also asked if there was a T in this case would it go toward the coach as his second. I was simply trying to say in the event it was a t it would count toward the coach, but it would be an indirect which wouldn't get him tossed as I saw no other point of asking the question. Unless you are aware of some sort of T that DOESN'T count toward a coach as either a direct or indirect.

Duffman, I think I understand what you were asking. Correct me if I'm wrong but you want to know if the coach was notified and the disqualified player either stayed in or returned to the game, what happens?

In that case the head coach would receive a direct technical foul. Here's the case book ruling:

10.5.3 SITUATION:

A5 has just received his/her fifth foul of the game. A5 (a) is erroneously permitted to remain in the game for another two minutes before the scorer realizes the mistake; or (b) leaves the game after the coach is notified of the disqualification. At the intermission between the third and fourth quarter, A5 reports as a substitute and subsequently enters the game.

RULING: In (a), as soon as the error is discovered, the player is removed from the game, no penalties are assessed. In (b), A5 will not actually "participate" until the ball becomes live. If detected prior to the ball becoming live, A5 would be directed to the bench and no penalty assessed unless the official deemed it was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. If detected after the ball becomes live, it is a technical foul charged directly to the head coach resulting in the loss of coaching-box privileges. The player is immediately removed from the game and Team B is awarded two free throws and the ball. (2-11-5 Note 2)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Duffman

This, and most states allow for direct and indirect T's for situations like this. In our state a coach walks after two direct T's, or any combination of 3 direct and indirect t's.

And if the coach had been notified and the DQ'd player then played (which is how I took the OP), who would get the T? (that's a rhetorical question)

[refiator]

By "assessed to the book" I assume you mean it was an administrative foul. How exactly would you penalize this? Sort of like assessing the bus driver a technical because the bus was late due to traffic, I guess.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by djtraver

Coach receives a technical foul early in the game. Later, a player commits his 5th foul and is permitted to continue play. Once the books notice the problem, player is deemed disqualified. A technical was assessed to the book. Question is, does the technical go towards the coach as his second? It was called as a technical on the book and the coach was not disqualified.

Why would anyone get a T? The player can in theory get 20 fouls. IF the officials are NOT notified and subsequently they did not notify the coach why would you penalize him?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by djtraver

Coach receives a technical foul early in the game. Later, a player commits his 5th foul and is permitted to continue play. Once the books notice the problem, player is deemed disqualified. A technical was assessed to the book.

It is uncertain from this description exactly how all this came down. But everybody knows (don't they?) that had the 5th foul/disqualification process gone as it should, and then this player is allowed to reenter the game, it would indeed be a technical foul. It would be on the head coach. And it would not be an indirect.

But everybody already knew that.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Duffman

I agree whole heartedly with most of this. I guess I disagree that knowing wether or not a bench player illegally entering and playing in a game after he's been disqualified is a direct t or an indirect t is "basic".

Coaches are responsible for their bench personel, correct?
A T to the bench is indirectly assessed to the coach, correct?
A DQd player becomes bench personel when the coach is notified, correct?

Originally Posted by djtraver

Coach receives a technical foul early in the game. Later, a player commits his 5th foul and is permitted to continue play. Once the books notice the problem, player is deemed disqualified. A technical was assessed to the book.

Question is, does the technical go towards the coach as his second? It was called as a technical on the book and the coach was not disqualified.

Sorry but these are basic principles.

Personally, there is no more comfortable feeling than knowing there is nothing that can happen on the court that I cant handle.
Not that I know all the rules, but I aspire to...

Question 4 you: Have you taken & passed the exam in your State?

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by tref

Coaches are responsible for their bench personel, correct?
A T to the bench is indirectly assessed to the coach, correct?
A DQd player becomes bench personel when the coach is notified, correct?



Sorry but these are basic principles.

That is exactly what I believed to be correct, however it seems to conflict with this...

10.5.3 SITUATION:

A5 has just received his/her fifth foul of the game. A5 (a) is erroneously permitted to remain in the game for another two minutes before the scorer realizes the mistake; or (b) leaves the game after the coach is notified of the disqualification. At the intermission between the third and fourth quarter, A5 reports as a substitute and subsequently enters the game.

RULING: In (a), as soon as the error is discovered, the player is removed from the game, no penalties are assessed. In (b), A5 will not actually "participate" until the ball becomes live. If detected prior to the ball becoming live, A5 would be directed to the bench and no penalty assessed unless the official deemed it was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. If detected after the ball becomes live, it is a technical foul charged directly to the head coach resulting in the loss of coaching-box privileges. The player is immediately removed from the game and Team B is awarded two free throws and the ball. (2-11-5 Note 2)