Technical Fouls???

[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

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by tref

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

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".

[bob jenkins]

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".

IMO, when you look it up yourself, you (a) learn it better and (b) often find other things that you didn't know.

If you look it up and the question is phrased in the form of "rule 1 says this but rule 2 seems to imply that, which is true?" then I have a lot more respect for the question.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

IMO, when you look it up yourself, you (a) learn it better and (b) often find other things that you didn't know.

If you look it up and the question is phrased in the form of "rule 1 says this but rule 2 seems to imply that, which is true?" then I have a lot more respect for the question.

Fair enough.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If you look it up and the question is phrased in the form of "rule 1 says this but rule 2 seems to imply that, which is true?" then I have a lot more respect for the question.

I'm open to more different kinds of questions. Sometimes answers appear in strange places in the book, and it's not obvious how to find them. Or people think in coach-speak and can't find "over the back" in the book.

[Raymond]

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".

IMO, if you know enough that to know a certain act is a T than you need to know whether it's direct or indirect. It's an indication that you are getting your rules knowledge from hearsay or what have seen when watching games instead of getting the knowledge from the rule book.

I believe you said you are working HS varsity games, right? If you are, knowledge of what is an direct or indirect T should be basic.

There's also the other addage, If you can't enforce it then don't call it.