Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac
Because there is a rule (Rule 10-1-5), a casebook play (10.1.5 SITUATION D), and an annual interpretation (2000-01 NFHS Interpretations SITUATION 15), that specifically states, in very clear terms, that we warn first when a player delays the game by interfering with the ball, by slapping it away, following a goal.
10-1-5: A team shall not: Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes
the following and similar acts: Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay.
10.1.5 SITUATION D: Immediately following a goal by A1, A3 slaps the ball
away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in. RULING: The official
shall sound his/her whistle and go to the table to have the scorer record a team
warning for delay. The warning shall then be reported to the head coach of Team A.
Any subsequent delay by Team A shall result in a team technical foul charged
to Team A. (4-47-3)
2000-01 NFHS Interpretations SITUATION 15: Immediately following a goal in the first quarter by Al, A3 slaps the ball away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in. In the second quarter, A2 reaches through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary plane. RULING: The official shall sound his/her whistle and go to the table to have the scorer record a team warning for the specific delay after it has occurred. The specific warning is then reported to the head coach of Team A. Any subsequent delay for interfering with the ball following a basket or throw-in plane violation by Team A shall result in a technical foul charged to Team A. COMMENT: The three warning situations listed in Rule 4-46 are treated separately. (4-46; 9-2-11; lO-1-5c,d)
|
Are you addressing the OP case? Because this info does not seem to apply to the OP case. The player did not merely slap the ball away. I did not go back and review all posts so maybe the case being discussed changed to this.
Anyway, recall 10-4-6. The list includes
but is not limited to...
I get the sense that if a player kicked the ball 1/5 of a mile into the crowd, you would come out with a DOG. To me, 10-4-6 could easily be used to address the original post with a T.
Furthermore, the intent and purpose of the rules is all too familiar. It is indicated "...A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by rule."
Well, calling a DOG in that case clearly gives an advantage to a team not intended by rule.
Agree? Or am I missing something more? I agree totally if the player just slapped the ball away, but not for a more egregious act, such as that in the OP or my example of punting the ball. That is treated differently just as when more egregious fouls are treated differently than minor fouls.
(BTW - your 10-1-5 is currently 10-2-1) (guessing that was previously mentioned)