technical foul question

Originally Posted by just another ref

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.

Just that every technical foul you can call adds to the team foul count. We cannot call an indirect technical....it is something that naturally results from one of the penalties I mentioned above. It's just a handy way to remember :)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is a separate foul which most definitely is charged to the head coach. If he gets a total of any 3 technical fouls, including indirect, he is gone.

Originally Posted by AremRed

Just that every technical foul you can call adds to the team foul count. We cannot call an indirect technical....it is something that naturally results from one of the penalties I mentioned above. It's just a handy way to remember

I agree with AremRed. An indirect technical is NOT a separate foul. It is part of another technical foul committed by someone else that for which the coach is held accountable. There is only one foul committed...and it isn't' by the coach...otherwise it would be direct. In fact, every other technical foul is actually a "direct" but there is no need for the distinction since only the head coach is held responsible for the actions of others on the team and there are no indirects for anyone else.

[Sharpshooternes]

Just one more caveat to remember, if the T you called on the player happens after he is replaced, the indirect foul credited to the head coach as the player is now bench personnel, would from then on prevent him from using the coach's box. But from what you describe you got it right. And just for a clarification maybe this will help clear it up, even though a bench player receives a T and the coach gets an indirect T, only was is counted toward the team foul count.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Just one more caveat to remember, if the T you called on the player happens after he is replaced,

He becomes bench personnel when the coach is notified, which is (usually) a little before he is replaced.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I agree with AremRed. An indirect technical is NOT a separate foul. It is part of another technical foul committed by someone else that for which the coach is held accountable.

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

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