Technical Fouls???

[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.

[Welpe]

Duffman, there are several infractions where a technical is charged only to the team. The chart in the back of your rule book is a good breakdown of how the various fouls are assessed.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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.

+2

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

+1.

Read more. Post less.

[Duffman]

All I was trying to say is that the previous poster had the correct answer, while also trying to answer what I believed to be the spirit of the question, which was "Is the HC responsible for bench personell".

Sorry if my answer confused or irritated anyone.

I'm also now aware that if the HC had been notified, and the player somehow remained in, or re-entered the game at a later point that is a direct T not indirect. Learning things is good, regardless of it whether or not it comes from reading the rule book or participating in on-line rules discussion.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Duffman

All I was trying to say is that the previous poster had the correct answer, while also trying to answer what I believed to be the spirit of the question, which was "Is the HC responsible for bench personell".

Sorry if my answer confused or irritated anyone.
...

It's not irritating b/c you were wrong, it's irritating b/c you posted it without any real rules basis?

There is a difference between being wrong b/c you are misinterpreting or being confused by a rule and being wrong b/c you are just guessing and don't really know the answer.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Learning things is good, regardless of it whether or not it comes from reading the rule book or participating in on-line rules discussion.

Cant say that I agree with this in its entirety. We should get our noses in the book to learn the basics at the very least. Backing up that knowledge by plugging into the Forum is supplemental... or at least it should be. JMO

[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)