Who gets the T?

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Leggs45
Administration of the Throw-in after Team A has possession of the ball and calls the excessive timeout:

NFHS: Team B will administer the throw-in after any player from Team B shoots 2 free-throws (different players can shoot each free-throw).

NCAA (men): Any player from Team B will shoot the 2 free-throws and play will resume at the point of interruption, i.e., Team A will have the throw-in (the same player must shoot both free-throws).

NCAA (women): Any player from Team B will shoot the 2 free-throws but Team A losses possession and Team B will administer the throw-in (the same player must shoot both free-throws).

Confused???

Only by the statement that "Team B will administer the throw-in" -- I thought that an official always administered the throw-in.

[Nevadaref]

The NFHS changed the penalty for the coach this year on a player participating after being disqualified from an indirect to a direct T. How does this fit with the above discussion?
Since the player is also charged with a flagrant T, does this mean that the team gets two team fouls charged and we shoot four shots? I doubt it.
The NFHS has some clean up to do on this rule change.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
The NFHS changed the penalty for the coach this year on a player participating after being disqualified from an indirect to a direct T. How does this fit with the above discussion?
Since the player is also charged with a flagrant T, does this mean that the team gets two team fouls charged and we shoot four shots? I doubt it.
The NFHS has some clean up to do on this rule change.

The main language in Rule 10-3PENALTY hasn't changed,as far as I know. It says that a player gets a flagrant T(R10-3-2+Penalty),but the penalty for ALL articles of this section is still "Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in". The fact that the coach's T is now direct instead of indirect just penalizes that coach a little bit more by making it easier for him to get disqualified for getting 2 direct T's,instead of getting an indirect as before,and being allowed another indirect as well as a direct before being disqualified.There's no additional FT's allotted just because the T has become direct from indirect.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
The NFHS changed the penalty for the coach this year on a player participating after being disqualified from an indirect to a direct T. How does this fit with the above discussion?
Since the player is also charged with a flagrant T, does this mean that the team gets two team fouls charged and we shoot four shots? I doubt it.
The NFHS has some clean up to do on this rule change.

I think the player is no longer charged with the flagrant T (what's the point of that? he's DQ'd anywhay) -- the comments on the NFHS site indicate the section has been "moved":

HEAD COACH DIRECTLY PENALIZED WHEN PLAYER PARTICIPATES AFTER BEING DISQUALIFIED (10-5-3): A new article was added indicating that the head coach shall not permit a player to participate after being disqualified. This change merely removes the provision from Rule 10-3-2 as a player technical and places it under the head coach’s responsibility in 10-5-3. The penalty still results in two free throws and the ball to the offended team, but now assesses a direct technical foul to the head coach (rather than an indirect). A head coach should be aware of the fact that a player has been disqualified because he/she has been notified by an official. Therefore, the penalty should be charged directly to the head coach. This change means that if a coach receives (or has received) another direct technical foul or two indirect technical fouls, he/she would be ejected. In states that utilize the coaching box, the privilege would still be lost, as was the case last year when an indirect technical was assessed.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
[/B]

I think the player is no longer charged with the flagrant T (what's the point of that? he's DQ'd anywhay) -- the comments on the NFHS site indicate the section has been "moved":

This change merely removes the provision from Rule 10-3-2 as a player technical and places it under the head coach’s responsibility in 10-5-3. The penalty still results in two free throws and the ball to the offended team, but now assesses a direct technical foul to the head coach (rather than an indirect). A head coach should be aware of the fact that a player has been disqualified because he/she has been notified by an official.

[/B][/QUOTE]Interesting. I thought that the idea of charging the flagrant T to the player was for the fact that he committed a flagrant unsportsmanlike act by deliberately participating after being disqualified(and being notified that he had been disqualified). I also thought that that was the basis for enacting the rule in the first place.This could make a significant difference in States that suspend players who receive flagrant fouls,if they no longer get one for this particular act. A player could try to pull this one now,and,even if caught,get off without any punishment at all.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

I think the player is no longer charged with the flagrant T (what's the point of that? he's DQ'd anywhay) -- the comments on the NFHS site indicate the section has been "moved":

This change merely removes the provision from Rule 10-3-2 as a player technical and places it under the head coach’s responsibility in 10-5-3. The penalty still results in two free throws and the ball to the offended team, but now assesses a direct technical foul to the head coach (rather than an indirect). A head coach should be aware of the fact that a player has been disqualified because he/she has been notified by an official.

[/B]

Interesting. I thought that the idea of charging the flagrant T to the player was for the fact that he committed a flagrant unsportsmanlike act by deliberately participating after being disqualified(and being notified that he had been disqualified). I also thought that that was the basis for enacting the rule in the first place.This could make a significant difference in States that suspend players who receive flagrant fouls,if they no longer get one for this particular act. A player could try to pull this one now,and,even if caught,get off without any punishment at all. [/B][/QUOTE]

First, the player is not technically disqualified once he's notified. Only the notification to the coach makes the DQ official. If you've told the player but not the coach, he's not DQ's.

Even if the player does try to reenter the game, the coach will at least be guilty of complicity. No coach that I know of has players enter the game without their knowledge.

Also, coaches will be more vigilant with the new rule since there are, in some states, fines associated with coaches being charged with technical.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
[/B]

First, the player is not technically disqualified once he's notified. Only the notification to the coach makes the DQ official. If you've told the player but not the coach, he's not DQ's.

[/B][/QUOTE]So,with the new rule,in the case above(or any case,for that matter),a player who re-enters the game and plays after being notified that he's disqualified is not penalized in any way if he is then caught? And his coach would not be penalized either if an official didn't notify him when that player's 5th foul occurred?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

First, the player is not technically disqualified once he's notified. Only the notification to the coach makes the DQ official. If you've told the player but not the coach, he's not DQ's.

[/B]

So,with the new rule,in the case above(or any case,for that matter),a player who re-enters the game and plays after being notified that he's disqualified is not penalized in any way if he is then caught? And his coach would not be penalized either if an official didn't notify him when that player's 5th foul occurred? [/B][/QUOTE]

Even with the old rule, neither the player nor the coach recieved any penalty unless the coach had been previously notified. Until the coach is notified, a player is not disqualified. (4-14-2)

It is not the coaches job nor is it required of them to keep count of the individual player's fouls...even though many of them do. Since we don't require them to know the foul count, we can't penalize them for not knowing it (or even pretending to not know it). They is why we must inform them of every disqualification.

Of course, once they were notified both the player and coach received a technical foul (indirect for the coach). I any case where this happens, it it probably the coach putting the player back in the game. The player is just doing what the coach instructed. It seems equitable that the coach receive the penalty more strongly and to let the player off without penalty...they're already out anyway.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
[/B]

Of course, once they were notified both the player and coach received a technical foul (indirect for the coach). I any case where this happens, it it probably the coach putting the player back in the game. The player is just doing what the coach instructed. It seems equitable that the coach receive the penalty more strongly and to let the player off without penalty...they're already out anyway. [/B][/QUOTE]So,the bottom line is that old R10-3-2 (T for participating after being disqualified) has been deleted completely in the new rule book?

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Of course, once they were notified both the player and coach received a technical foul (indirect for the coach). I any case where this happens, it it probably the coach putting the player back in the game. The player is just doing what the coach instructed. It seems equitable that the coach receive the penalty more strongly and to let the player off without penalty...they're already out anyway. [/B]

So,the bottom line is that old R10-3-2 (T for participating after being disqualified) has been deleted completely in the new rule book? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, JR,
Last year's 10-3-3 is the same as this year's 10-3-2.
Last year's 10-3-2 went away

---

Ooh! I had a thought.
Even though last year's 10-3-2 is not there, is it really still there because it wasn't specifically eliminated? I need a ruling.

[Edited by mick on Sep 3rd, 2003 at 05:34 PM]

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick
[/B]

Yes, JR,
Last year's 10-3-3 is the same as this year's 10-3-2.
Last year's 10-3-2 went away

---

Ooh! I had a thought.
Even though last year's 10-3-2 is not there, is it really still there because it wasn't specifically eliminated? I need a ruling.

[/B][/QUOTE]And so it is written,and so it shall be!

R10-3-2 is gone,so a disqualified player is now not penalized further if they enter the game again. Just the head coach. And it's no longer considered a flagrant act.In other words,they've actually lightened the total penalty from a flagrant T and an indirect T to a single direct T.

Don't know if I agree
but that's the way it be.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Yes, JR,
Last year's 10-3-3 is the same as this year's 10-3-2.
Last year's 10-3-2 went away

---

Ooh! I had a thought.
Even though last year's 10-3-2 is not there, is it really still there because it wasn't specifically eliminated? I need a ruling.

[/B]

And so it is written,and so it shall be!

R10-3-2 is gone,so a disqualified player is now not penalized further if they enter the game again. Just the head coach. And it's no longer considered a flagrant act.In other words,they've actually lightened the total penalty from a flagrant T and an indirect T to a single direct T.

Don't know if I agree
but that's the way it be. [/B][/QUOTE]

Glad I asked, because this is not what I understood the change to be, but then I haven't seen the new rules book yet. Perhaps someone who has it can post the entire section.
I was having a problem with the player getting a T and the coach getting a direct, but only charging a single team foul, maybe the NFHS deserves some credit for anticipating this problem.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
[/B]

Glad I asked, because this is not what I understood the change to be, but then I haven't seen the new rules book yet. Perhaps someone who has it can post the entire section.
[/B][/QUOTE]Nevada,Mick scanned that page out of his new rulebook and e-mailed it to me. The section from last year's book giving a player a flagrant T for participating after being disqualified (R10-3-2) has simply been deleted,and R10-3-3 from last year now becomes R10-3-2.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Nevada,Mick scanned that page out of his new rulebook and e-mailed it to me. The section from last year's book giving a player a flagrant T for participating after being disqualified (R10-3-2) has simply been deleted,and R10-3-3 from last year now becomes R10-3-2.

Well, thanks go to both JR and Mick for setting me straight on that one.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Well, thanks go to both JR and Mick for setting me straight on that one.

Give the credit to Bob Jenkins,Camron and Mick.I wasn't sure how the new rule worked,either. Now I know.