Technical Fouls???

tref

Snaqwells wrote
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.

Adam

Duffman wrote
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)

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

Raymond

Duffman wrote
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, 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.

SNIPERBBB

bob jenkins wrote
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.

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.

Duffman

tref wrote
Bingo! This pertains to the original sitch you posted.

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

Suspect away I guess... 🙄

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.

SNIPERBBB

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

Duffman

SNIPERBBB wrote
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.

tref

Duffman wrote
Suspect away I guess... 🙄

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.

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?

Duffman wrote
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.

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

Duffman wrote
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.

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.

bob jenkins

Duffman wrote
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.

No one said otherwise.

Duffman wrote
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.

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.

Duffman

tref wrote
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?

An uneccesary one?

Adam

Duffman wrote
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.

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

Adam

Duffman wrote
An uneccesary one?

You're not calling that?

Duffman

Snaqwells wrote
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.

Adam

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

Gotcha.

tref

Duffman wrote
An uneccesary one?

Seriously though...

Duffman

An indirect T as it's usportmanlike conduct from bench personnel.

tref

Cool, just wanted make sure you understood why one infraction is direct while the other is indirect.

rockyroad

tref wrote
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.

Duffman

tref wrote
Cool, just wanted make sure you understood why one infraction is direct while the other is indirect.

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?

Adam

Duffman wrote
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).

« Previous Page Next Page »