Leaving the court early
 

I'm a coach, not a ref, and I was searching for a clarification but did not find the exact scenario I 'm looking for. I apologize in advance if the answer is in this forum elsewhere.

My player ran his mouth after he was called for a foul and was given a technical. In my anger at the player, I sent him immediately to the bench and another player came on to the court before the opposing player lined up to take his free throws. Clearly, I was wrong for not waiting for the player to be called in by the ref - I get that.

The result was that my player who left the court was given a technical, which was now his second and he was kicked out of the game. We were also given a bench technical and warned that one more and I would be out. The other team received 6 free throws, including the original 2 for the foul.

I'm seeing mixed answers on the web as to whether leaving the court constitutes a technical or merely a violation. Who get the technical: the player coming in? the player leaving? me? all of us? some of us?

Thanks in advance.

10-3-6i: A player shall not leave the playing court for an unauthorized reason to demonstrate resentment, disgust, or intimidation.

These numbers don't add up. A personal and two technicals, all on the same player. There's your 6 free throws. They may have given you an indirect technical, which it doesn't sound to me like they should have. And even if they did, one more wouldn't put you out.

Perhaps it was an indirect technical on me as you suggest and I misunderstood the "next one" part. He did say "one more and..."

The player did not leave the court for any reason other than his coach mistakenly sent him there. Was it correct to give him the second tech?

dcourtney50 (HC), my take on this OP is the officials charged A1 with 2 TF - one as a player and one as a bench member (one indirect TF to the HC). They, then, charged A6 with his TF as a bench member (second indirect TF to the HC). This would lead to 6 FT for team B, and the HC is one direct or indirect from ejection.

Why all this took place seems to me to be a HTBT situation for what went happened on the initial play, and what occurred in the game prior to this play. If there was nothing noteworthy prior that would cause this play to be escalated, then maybe (just maybe), this could be an example of too much officiating.

Assuming things played out as stated, this makes me cry a little.

After his T, at most, they should have told him to wait until they brought his sub in. Then they should have brought the sub in immediately. At most, this is a violation, which would be meaningless, because the other team was getting the ball anyway.

To call a T on a player for leaving the court is dumb. To say he's bench personnel and that T is an indirect on the coach is dumber. To claim you're one T from leaving dumberer.

Any time a coach wants to help me get rid of a problem child, I let him.

Do your officials get assigned through an assigner? I ask because while all this seems to be an example of someone getting too anxious about officiating, there needs to be some training involved. If they get assigned, that makes the review process easier.

+1

I'm with Adam on this. I Believe that by the book, unless it's a 5th foul or something, the rules requires him to stay for the technical free throws. However, if there is some emotion, I probably bring the sub in right away. That avoids this whole scenario.

Actually, the rule does not require this. The rule is that they must wait until right before the final free throw of a personal foul. If the foul is technical, then they do not have to wait by rule.

That said, I would apply your logic to an intentional foul as well. If you want to get picky, let the problem child sit a second and bring the sub in when it's allowed by rule. AFAIC, getting a problem child off of my court is an authorized reason.

Tough situation
 

This is a tough situation because the coach was trying to do a good thing and there may have been some room here for preventative officiating. But there is room for preventative coaching as well.

The coach has to know the rules and keep his players from leaving and entering the court when they shouldn't. Maybe bring the player over to the sideline to chew on him while he stands on the court, then send in the sub when beckoned, and chew him out some more on the bench.

As a former coach I know mistakes happen and have been in your situation before. But now that its done all you can do is take this as a good opportunity to teach the players about appropriate behavior and proper sub procedures so it doesn't happen in a big game.

Clarifying question, Coach C: Did the sub just come into the game off the bench directly to the court, did he check in at the table, and/or was he beckoned in by an official?

I believe that's already been answered.

1. It is not a violation to leave the floor during a dead ball.
2. It is not a technical foul to leave the floor when the action does not involve showing disgust or resentment.
3. The team member coming from the bench did enter illegally because he was not beckoned in by an official (perhaps he checked-in at the table, perhaps not).
4. With technical fouls, substitutes are permitted prior to the first free throw.

The correct administration for this situation is a personal foul by A1, then an unsporting technical foul by A1 (for running his mouth), and finally a technical foul charged to the illegally-entering substitute per rule 10-2. No indirect technicals are charged to the head coach.

Don't know if Team B is entitled to FTs for the initial foul by A1 (the personal foul), but four FTs are warranted for the two technical fouls.

You know that it doesn't matter from where he came if he wasn't beckoned in by an official. The penalty for 10-2 is one technical foul for either or both requirements (reporting to the table and being beckoned).

Follow-up
 

Thanks to those who took the time to respond.

Thinking back, he never mentioned the word "indirect" but I'm guessing that is what he gave me or the other team would have been awarded even more free throws. As it were, he gave 2 for the original foul and 4 for the 2 techs he gave my player.

As I stated, I know I screwed up by yanking my player right away. It was the heat of the moment and I was teaching a lesson by backing the ref. As others have mentioned, I was punished when I was supporting the ref, not trying to escalate things.

It seems like many think this was an overreaction on the refs part and that he didn't have to do what he did. I'm still not certain of this though: Was the ref technically correct in assigning a tech for my player leaving the court? I've seen some folks say it is a violation, not a tech.

In a previous game, this ref game one of my players a tech for handing him the ball after making a basket. Another of my players had done the same thing earlier and drew a warning for touching the ball after a basket. I scolded my players for it because I support officials, but deep down I was angry because I've seen players hand the back to officials countless times without being called for a delay. There was no intent to delay but I knew the letter of the law was against us so there was no argument. Today, I'm still not certain of the letter of the law.

If a player leaves the court and another comes on before being waved in - violation or technical?

Yes, of course I know that. I'm just fact gathering. Don't get ahead of me. :D

In my opinion, the correct number of FTs were awarded despite the fouls not being charged to the proper individuals.


As an official, I would have quickly waved your sub in from the table to prevent this whole mess. As a coach, simply say to the nearest official, "May I sub him, please? Sub, please." If the officials are aware of what you are attempting to do (an immediate sub for a player just receiving a T) other problems will likely not occur.

Combining this and the next section of your post.
Here is the actual text of the two rules in question.

From the technical foul section of the rules:
10-6i: "A player shall not:
Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:..."
"Leave the playing court for an unauthorized reason to demonstrate resentment, disgust or intimidation."


From the violation section of the rules:
9-3-3: "A player shall not leave the court for an unauthorized reason.
PENALTY: (Section 3) The ball is dead when the violation occurs and is awarded to the opponents for a throw-in from the designated out-of-bounds spot nearest the violation. (See 6-7-9 Exception d)"

Therefore, the official was incorrect to penalize the player who left the court as you have stated that it was not done in disgust, resentment, or intimidation, but only per your instruction. Although the official may have perceived that the player was acting in one of the listed illegal manners.

The violation is only appropriate during a live ball. It is not against the rules to depart during a dead ball. So this rule was not violated in your situation.

What was infringed? The following rule for substitution:
From the technical foul section of the rules:
10-2 articles 1&2: "ART. 1A substitute shall not enter the court:
Without reporting to the scorer.
ART. 2
A substitute shall not enter the court:
Without being beckoned by an official, except between quarters and during time-outs.
PENALTY: (Section 2) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in. One foul for either or both requirements. Penalized if discovered before the ball becomes live."

Thus the correct individual to penalize in your scenario is the team member ENTERING the court as an illegal substitute since he either didn't report or wasn't beckoned by an official.

This would have eliminated your other player from being charged with his second technical foul and disqualified.

The scoring team needs to leave the ball alone after it passes through the basket. Grabbing it and tossing it to an official certainly qualifies as interfering with the ball following a goal and can get your team a delay of game warning. That should be officially reported to the scorer and the head coach. The next time that one of your players interfered it would be a team technical foul, not charged directly to the individual player.

10-1-5:
"A team shall not:
Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts:
a. When the clock is not running consuming a full minute through not being ready when it is time to start either half.
b. Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play. See 7-5-1 and 8-1-2 for the resumption-of-play procedure to use after a time-out or the intermission between quarters. The procedure is used prior to charging a technical foul in these specific situations.
c. Commit a violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane, as in 9-2-10, after any team warning for delay.
d. Contact with the free thrower or a huddle of two or more players in the lane by either team prior to a free throw following any team warning for delay.
e. Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay.
f. Not having the court ready for play following any time-out after any team warning for delay."

You do a wonderful job of handling your players and supporting the officials. Thank you and best wishes in the future.

Not indirect...
 

Neither of these techs would have been charged indirect to the coach. The first tech (even though it may have been given in error) is on an active player and the second tech was on a substitute which is treated differently than a bench player.

I am never going to penalize a Coach for getting a numbskull off the floor.

Actually, since the sub entered illegally, the kid who left is still a player until the ball becomes live.

Coach:

There is no way I would be charging your player with another TF for the situation described. In fact, I would be giving you a fine Cuban cigar for recognizing you have a problem player and was proactive in taking care of business. The officials were being Overly Officiating Officials (OOO).

We wish more HCs had your fore sight with players who act inappropriately.

MTD, Sr.

I agree.

MTD, Sr.

Hi dcourtney50 thanks for coming here wanting to learn. I noticed you mentioned a "bench technical" in your OP and wanted to clarify that for you. Any substitute or bench personnel (assistant coaches, managers, etc.) that receives a bench technical is also "indirect" to you the head coach.

Basically it means you are responsible for your bench and holds you responsible by putting you a little closer to ejection (in addition to the free throws and getting the ball). The head coach is ejected when a combination of three direct or indirect technicals is reached. Many refs call it an "indirect technical" but I prefer to think of it as a technical that has indirect properties, so that we don't confuse it with a separate technical.

Thus, you as the head coach could receive an "indirect" by your assistant getting whacked, get a technical yourself, and then have a bench player get whacked (again indirect to you) and you would then be ejected. In your OP the referee was wrong that one more would result in ejection -- none of the two technicals he called had any indirect properties to you. Even if your player had been bench personnel when he got his second you would only have 1 indirect and could get two more before ejection.

Perhaps the referee who gave the second T was not aware the coach told him to come off, and believed from the way he left and went to the bench that he was doing it to demonstrate disgust with the calls?