Technical Fouls???

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

I agree, and didn't mean my example to be limiting. But, when the question can be answered directly from the book, as in:

10-5-3 The head coach shall not permit a team member to participate after being removed from the game for disqualification. PENALTY: The foul is charged directly to the head coach.

then I get a little peeved, especially when several hints have been given in the thread.

[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.