Conduct Penalty Enforcement Clarification

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

I've been dissecting the NFHS rulebook and searching past threads on this question and finally decided to seek an answer from the wise stewards of this forum. :worship:
We typically use the conduct penalty (after an initial warning most times) to maintain control on the field before going to the USC. I've been mentored that we want to use the half T (once you decide to use it) to take possession away from the offending team when possible. Otherwise, when we call conduct on an offending team's player and they do not have possession, I've been trained that the in-home serves the technical. I've read and reread the NFHS rulebook to verify this, and cannot. I have called a couple half T's on players whose teams did not have possession, sent the offending player off instead of the in-home, and did not have anyone criticize me on this. But I really want to make sure that I'm not overlooking a footnote in the NFHS rulebook. I will accept that it may be an NCAA rule that gets mixed into NFHS games, but I've not researched those rules yet.

[LaxRef]

I've been dissecting the NFHS rulebook and searching past threads on this question and finally decided to seek an answer from the wise stewards of this forum. :worship:
We typically use the conduct penalty (after an initial warning most times) to maintain control on the field before going to the USC. I've been mentored that we want to use the half T (once you decide to use it) to take possession away from the offending team when possible. Otherwise, when we call conduct on an offending team's player and they do not have possession, I've been trained that the in-home serves the technical. I've read and reread the NFHS rulebook to verify this, and cannot. I have called a couple half T's on players whose teams did not have possession, sent the offending player off instead of the in-home, and did not have anyone criticize me on this. But I really want to make sure that I'm not overlooking a footnote in the NFHS rulebook. I will accept that it may be an NCAA rule that gets mixed into NFHS games, but I've not researched those rules yet.

Good questions.

First off, you cannot, by the book, call a conduct foul on a player for any player-to-player issues; you have to go right to USC or not call anything. But if you call a conduct foul for a player-to-player issue most people won't know that you're not allowed to. You can legally call a conduct foul on a player for something directed at the officials.

That being said, the only time the in-home serves is when you don't know who the foul is on or the person committing the foul is not a player in the game. So, if A1 is in the game and mouths off to you about a call—and you don't think a USC is warranted—team B gets the ball or A1 serves 30 seconds, depending on who had possession.

But if A1 is a bench player, the in-home sits 30 seconds and, in addition, A1 cannot enter the game until the penalty is over (so if team A only had 11 players total, they'd play man-down for 30 seconds and would not have a sub available during that time, either).

And, of course, if the coach gets a conduct foul, the other team gets possession or the in-home sits for 30 seconds (and the coach cannot enter the game :chuckle:).

As to the "using the conduct foul to control the game before going to the USC," I think this is a great idea when dealing with a coach. You let the coach know that you aren't going to put up with anymore without really affecting the game. However, I'm far less inclined to put up with crap from players, and will go right to the USC if I think the player is really out of line. The coach can get a USC straight away as well, but it's less likely.

[3rdPersonPlural]

OK. This conduct foul (one arm out, 30 second technical) seems to be useful for keeping order early on.

A while back I read a post where someone said that they call it during a loose ball (play on, possession awarded only) to quell discord and nonsense on the bench, then call it again when the troublesome team has the ball (merely a turnover), then call it for reals when the problem bench's team is on D and ding them 30 before hauling out the USC eagle.

Otherwise, I find it useful when you want to remind folks that the USC call is the catch all 'listen to me or else' call and it's pending if this (whatever it is) doesn't stop.

However, I sometimes think that I'm deploying this arrow more artfully than it was designed for.

What is the fundamental scenario for a tehnical conduct call?

[LaxRef]

What is the fundamental scenario for a tehnical conduct call?

I generally call it when someone is arguing a call beyond an "acceptable level"—whatever that is to you—but when they're not using profanity, questioning your integrity, calling you an idiot, telling you you're blind, talking about your mom, holding up poorly-drawn sketches of you doing unnatural things with livestock, and so on.

[BlueJaysLaxFan]

Great, this helps me a lot, and clarifies what I was told during training/refresh/etc.

[Snake~eyes]

OK. This conduct foul (one arm out, 30 second technical) seems to be useful for keeping order early on.

A while back I read a post where someone said that they call it during a loose ball (play on, possession awarded only) to quell discord and nonsense on the bench, then call it again when the troublesome team has the ball (merely a turnover), then call it for reals when the problem bench's team is on D and ding them 30 before hauling out the USC eagle.

Otherwise, I find it useful when you want to remind folks that the USC call is the catch all 'listen to me or else' call and it's pending if this (whatever it is) doesn't stop.

However, I sometimes think that I'm deploying this arrow more artfully than it was designed for.

What is the fundamental scenario for a tehnical conduct call?
I don't like the conduct foul too much. I would never give the same person (or bench) more than one conduct foul. Once they get a CF, the next step is USC. The best time to give a CF is when the other team has posession so you can throw your flag and make them serve time, this seems to make them realize.

[Woodenstick]

I know some officials suggest using the conduct foul to generate a loss of possession, while snake eyes likes it the other way (to generate a 30 penalty). Personally, I am not that discriminating, if they earn a conduct foul they get it, and whatever the penalty happens to be, that is what they get!

Also I was taught under normal conditions you should move up the ladder (warning, conduct, USC) to respond to mouth. But depending on the circumstances, you may have to repeat or skip a step.