I agree with both of you that are arguing ... because you're saying the same thing.

And on the OP - called correctly; player is not bench personnel yet.

Okay, now you're playing the word game with us. If you want to look at it that way, it is not a part of another technical foul, but a result of another technical foul. It is not separate act, but it does have separate consequences.

It may be a word game, but the mentality that it's two separate fouls is what leads some officials to shoot 2 FTs for the technical foul and then bonus FTs for the indirect if the team is in the bonus.

Never heard that one but Murphy's Law applies to everything, I suppose.

Conversely, I would say that the mentality that it's not two separate fouls leads to the indirect on the coach not being noted.

"No, that was on the assistant. I think?"

When you consider how rarely all this actually happens, best to plan on keeping up with the indirect/total technical count on the head coach in your own head.

Seems every year we get one or two newer officials wondering if they should shoot bonus FTs when an indirect T is charged to the coach. Similarly, we get the question of whether the indirect foul counts as a team foul towards the bonus. I think that one may actually be more common; but the problem is the same.

Exactly. If it is consistently thought of and talked about as 1 foul that is only noted indirectly to the coach, then all of those problems should disappear.

Looking at it another way, a foul is defined as an infraction of the rules. A coach who gets an indirect T hasn't committed a rules infraction, someone else has.

Yep,

Example:

I have had newer officials ask me if the T they give to the player dunking in pre-game warm ups should count toward the bonus. (1)

Yes

I have had newer officials ask me if the T they give to the player dunking in pre-game warm ups AND the indirect T the coach gets should count toward the bonus. (2)

No

Seat belt?

Yes