[BillyMac]

I started a thread on this topic about two weeks ago, got a few replies, did some more research, and now want to put this baby to bed.

The following was stated at a local board meeting last month:
"Always penalize with team technical fouls if a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations."

Sounds good, easy to apply, good rule of thumb, however, two articles in 10-3-5 seem to indicate that sometimes player technicals, rather than team technicals, can be charged for some "delay the game" acts. Plus, I've often heard that one should never say always, which is the crux of this thread.

10-3-5 Player Technicals: Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.
d. Repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10.

The difference really does matter, especially in terms of the number of fouls a player has counted toward disqualification.

Note: In my earlier thread, bob jenkins seemed to think that at least one of the articles in 10-3-5 might be left over from the time when a technical foul was charged only if a warning had been issued for that particular act, which I took to mean that in revising the delay of game rules a few years ago, the NFHS somehow forgot to revise, or rewrite, articles in 10-3-5.

Here are some relevant case situations. In four of the five situations, the player technical is charged before a delay of game warning is given, so I am assuming that the same player technical foul can be charged if the exact same play occurred after a delay of game warning is given:

9.2.10 SITUATION: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Team B has not been warned previously for a throw-in plane infraction. RULING: B1 is charged with a technical foul and it also results in the official having a team warning recorded and reported to the head coach. COMMENT: In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower’s efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic. (4- 47-1; 10-1-5c)

10.3.10 SITUATION A: After a field goal, A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in. Thrower A1 holds the ball: (a) B2 crosses the boundary line and fouls A1; or (b) B2 reaches through the out-of-bounds plane and touches the ball while in the hands of A1. RULING: It is an intentional personal foul in (a), and a technical foul in (b). In (a), such a contact foul with the thrower during a throw-in shall be considered intentional, or if it is violent, it should be ruled flagrant. COMMENT: Either act is a foul and it should be called whenever it occurs during a game without regard to time or score or whether the team had or had not been warned for a delay-of-game situation. If the player making the throw-in (A1) reaches through the out-of-bounds plane into the court and B1 then slaps the ball from the hand of A1, no violation has occurred. B1 has merely slapped a live ball from the hands of A1. (4-19-3, 4; 9-2-10 Penalty 3, 4)

10.3.10 SITUATION B: After a field goal, the score is A-55, B-54. A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in with two seconds remaining in the game. A1 throws the ball toward A2 who also is out of bounds along the end line. B2 reaches across the end line and grabs or slaps the ball while it is in flight. Time expires close to the moment the official indicates the infraction. RULING: A technical foul is charged against B2. The remaining time or whether Team B had been previously warned for a delay-of-game situation is not a factor. No free throws are awarded as the winner of the game has been determined. (9-2-10 Penalty 3, 4)

10.3.10 SITUATION D: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Earlier in the game, Team B had received a team warning for delay. RULING: Even though Team B had already been issued a warning for team delay, when B1 breaks the plane and subsequently contacts the ball in the thrower’s hand, it is considered all the same act and the end result is penalized. A player technical foul is assessed to B1; two free throws and a division line throw-in for Team A will follow. The previous warning for team delay still applies with any subsequent team delay resulting in a team technical foul. (4-47; 9-2-10 Penalty 3; 10-1-5c)

2000-01 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 13: A1 is at the free-throw line to shoot a free throw. The lead official bounces the ball to A1, and B1, who is in one of the free-throw lane spaces, a) reaches out and intercepts the bounce pass without breaking the vertical plane of the free-throw lane with either foot and then requests a time-out; or b) breaks the vertical plane of the free-throw lane and intercepts the bounce pass and then requests a time-out. RULING: This is not a warning for delay situation, as outlined by Rule 4-46. In both situations, a technical foul shall be called for B1 delaying the game by preventing the ball from being put in play. (10-3-7a)

So, given the rule citation, and the case play situations, is the statement, "Always penalize with team technical fouls if a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations." true?