Technical Fouls???
 

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.

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

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.

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. :D

Situations like what?

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.

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.

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.

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.

+2

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.

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)

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)

+1.

Read more. Post less.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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?

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)

And yes I have. Our state requires an open book test which I have taken and passed in each of the last 3 years.

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

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

Bingo! This pertains to the original sitch you posted.


An open book test, even the 1st time? Thats quite suspect...

Huh? I would think that (almost) anyone could pass (assuming that's 70% or so) an open book test even if they had never officiated before.

Some states allow an open book test to suffice for a set number of years for new officials; but those officials don't tend to get varsity schedules.

Whoa! I dont want to work in those states.

There's no conflict when you understand when it is a player becomes bench personnel.

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.

I have worked with a guy that didn't pass the open book test, he was passed due to a shortage of officials. I have heard of guys that didn't pass the test as well.

To acquire the classification to do varsity is closed book and a mechanics test. No mechanics test required for first years though.( the aforementioned guy wouldn't of passed that either.

Suspect away I guess... :rolleyes:

Again I understand my first post was incorrect. My line of thinking was that the disqualified player was bench personnel which the HC is ultimately responsible for and therefore would be given an indirect T. Since then I have learned (which is the reason we having these discussions) that it is actually a direct T. I greatly appreciate the poster who posted the applicable rule earlier in this conversation.

Now if you want to sit here and argue that the above is what you consider "basic knowledge" that's fine I guess, but it's something we are going to have to disagree about. I've worked roughly 40 official dates a year (most of which are double headers) including two full seasons of varsity assignments as part of a 3 man crew, and a little bit of D3 college JV action and I have yet to encounter this situation, or anything remotely close to it occurring. That doesn't include the multiple officials camps and youth tournaments in which I frequently work 5-8 games per date. I'm aware that pales to the experience some of you likely have but that doesn't change the fact that I haven't seen it in three years, and therefore I don't consider that something "basic". I'm thankful I'm learning the finer points about my avocation here as opposed to on the court after I've screwed them up.

Lastly I'm glad you have, and are confident in, a solid foundation of rulebook knowledge. That's a great thing to have as strength. One of my partners also has an encyclopedic knowledge of the book, and he pulls our *** out of the fire once or twice a year. My personal strength is in game management and comes from my background of 12 years as a player (10 years as a youth and HS standout and 2 years as a division 2 benchwarmer) and 13 years as a coach. Personally there is no greater comfort than knowing there is no behavior that goes on in game, either on the floor or on the bench, which I can't handle. That's something that can't be learned from a rule book.

Rulebook knowledge is a tremendous asset, but it’s not the only asset, and it alone doesn’t make you a great official. Please understand I am in no way implying that you don’t also have game management skills.

I hope you have also learned under the OP that there shouldn't of been a T to start with.

Absolutely. I was also shocked to learn that if the player attempts to re-enter after being disqualified that it was up to the discretion of the officials on whether to access a T at all.

Do you know WHY its direct to him?
If a teammember on the bench calls you a frickin idiot, what type of T is that?

Guess we'll have to disagree then, big time! You must live in SoCal :D

Not only is it "tremendous" it is also the FOUNDATION which everything else is built upon!! I agree, I've worked with some guys that know their rules but still cant call Lassie.

No one said otherwise.

Unless you hear the coach say something like, "Go in anyway -- that last foul was a crappy call so you shouldn't have been DQ'd", it's not going to be a T. So, while the case does allow discretion, in 99.99% of the cases, it's not going to be needed, and not going to be a T if detected prior to the ball becoming live.

An uneccesary one?

For the attempt, sure. But if they make it in, there's no discretion in the case play.

You're not calling that?

Ohh I'm calling it, I just meant his actions were not necessary, even if I were a frickin idiot.

Gotcha.

Seriously though...

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

Would you rather be known as the guy that can save a crew with a thorough knowledge of the rule book, or would you rather be known as the guy who doesn't know the requirements of TF situations. These have harsh penalties to the players and coaches involved, they are even more harsh for a crew that misspplies them.

If you are getting the games you say you are, you will eventually be the CC of a game, and you will eventually work with officials that will let you handle all the "hard" stuff because you are the CC. Improper rules application, especially when you are expected to KNOW the rules, is not always well received. It makes the crew look bad and in turn makes the assignor look bad.

No one can force you to read the books....but you will soon be discovered if you don't :(