Thread: Two Questions
View Single Post
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 23, 2006, 12:04pm
assignmentmaker assignmentmaker is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 508
Like I said, I'll vote for you

Quote:
Originally posted by Nevadaref
Quote:
Originally posted by coachmjw
Yes. This was a high school varsity boys game. So I am safe to say that in the first situation the delay/interference is seperate situations and no technical should have been called. Is this correct? Is there a rule number to back this up?

I knew the second situation was wrong.
Unfortunately, the officials were incorrect in both of your situations. The first one is not well understood so it is forgivable. The second one is in black and white in the book and should not be screwed up on the court.

Here are some rule references for you:

1.)There are three different team warnings for delay listed in the rule.

4-47 WARNING FOR DELAY
A warning to a team for delay is an administrative procedure by an official which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the coach:
ART. 1 . . . For throw-in plane violations, as in 9-2-11.
ART. 2 . . . For huddle by either team and contact with the free thrower, as in 10-1-5c.
ART. 3 . . . For interfering with the ball following a goal as in 10-1-5d.

Although most people don't correctly understand this a team could receive a separate warning for each of these three items and still NOT receive a technical foul. The team must infringe one of these specified items a second time in order to earn a T.
The language of the following case book plays supports this understanding. However, it is not crystal clear and sadly many officials misunderstand this. The NFHS needs to release a play ruling to really clarify this.


10.1.5 SITUATION C: The calling official has reported the foul and proceeds to his/her proper position for the first of two free throws awarded to A1. B1 and B2 are: (a) huddling in the lane; or (b) two B players are not occupying the first two marked spaces next to the end line as required. RULING: In (a), if the huddle delays the officials' administration, Team B is warned. The warning is recorded by the scorer and reported to the head coach. If Team B had been previously warned for free-throw delay, a technical foul shall be charged. In (b), Team B will be directed to occupy the required spaces. If there is delay, a technical foul shall be charged to Team B. (4-47)

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 this specific delay. The warning shall then be reported to the head coach of Team A. Any subsequent similar delay by Team A shall result in a technical foul charged to Team A. (4-47-3)



2.) From page 55 of the Case Book
7.5.7 SITUATION B: Team A scores a field goal. B1 picks up the ball after the made basket, then proceeds out of bounds to start the throw-in process. B1 runs along the end line out of bounds while attempting to find an open teammate for the throw-in. Immediately after B1 releases the throw-in pass, (a) the ball is kicked by A2 near the end line; (b) the ball is kicked by A2 near the division line; or (c) the ball is deflected out of bounds across the end line off of A2. RULING: In (a) and (b), A2 has violated by kicking the ball. In (a), Team B will be awarded a throw-in and retain the right to run the end line on the ensuing throw-in. In (b), Team B will put the ball in play at a designated spot nearest the violation, which is the division line. In (c), A2 legally contacted the ball and subsequently hit it out of bounds, ending the throw-in. Team B is awarded a designated spot throw-in on the end line.

[Edited by Nevadaref on Jan 22nd, 2006 at 11:45 PM]
Like I said, I'll vote for you. We don't so much need a bevy of clarifications, though, as to have the "rules" re-written, an ultimate editorial makeover. Half as long, twice as clear. The map is not the territory.

Sure, we're stuck with some bad torts, but this situation is actually fixable. It will make some people less important, if the rules are easier to understand and remember, but . . . c'est la guerre.

What kind of law do you do?
__________________
Sarchasm: the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient.
Reply With Quote