I can see the perspective of those that say you are, in fact, helping the defense (who is down and needs time to set up their press, thus the delaying tactic by the player holding the ball) by calling the DOG. I'm with those that say either let them waste the time to their own detriment or whack them for unsporting conduct.

The OP changed the parameters of the scenario after he received some answers.

Getting OOB is irrelevant for a five second count in this play. Has the player had ample time to retrieve the ball? Yes? I'm counting.

We aren't there to ignore rules and concoct some plan to punish players.

I agree. But what I'm saying is, it's pretty easy for said player to do this and to burn an easy 2-3 seconds without appearing to be delaying on purpose.

Which is why I probably whack him for unsporting conduct, rather than a DOG warning.

ETA: This is in response to Dad's last post.

IMO, this is a bit of a stretch on the wording: not limited to.

This play is covered in 10-1-5e.

I cant find a case book for the OP issue.

Again can someone tell me why you couldnt go with a T on this. Because by giving a quick DOG. I have stopped the clock. Allowed the defense to set up for a steal and saved them at least 5-8 seconds of gathering the ball and taking time off for an inbounds pass which will like cement my win and instead I have allowed the intentional action of the defense to create an action to help them win the game instead.

We let a ticky tack foul go on a guy breaking to the basket because this call actually helps the defense when clearly they had the advantage and easy layup.

To each his own. I do think it is an interesting play to think about and what we might each do.

Agreed, but it feels like I'm rewarding with a D.O.G. It's a smart move by the kid that forces the official to make a tough decision, and IMO it's an act that is unsporting. As another poster said, to each their own.

Why does it have to be a "quick" DOG whistle? Seems to me, were I a hoops ref*, in this context I would not be quick with that call while the clock was running and the player is hurting his own team.

But I do not see a tech here, and more than I see a tech being the sanction for deliberately fouling an opponent (in a way that we don't treat as intentional). The rules have guidelines and sanctions and I don't think it is proper do decide that an infraction should get a more serious consequence because the referees don't like the limit of the consequence.

(As I have disclaimed before, I'm a soccer ref and hoops parent and occasional coach with a mere smattering of basketball games reffed with no training, almost entirely decades ago.)

Players use the rules to gain an advantage all the time, especially in stopping the clock. From the sounds of it a few want to give the defense a T for intelligent play. Why not T the offensive for unsporting when they throw the ball high into the air to run the clock out?

Actually, an official does have a rules basis to go directly to a T in this situation, if warranted. It's covered under rule 10-3-5.

ART. 5

A player shall not:

Delay the game by acts such as:

a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.

I disagree that this covers it. The play and rule are for your typical lets play jungle ball and slow down the inbounds cuz I am tired. This kid clearly wanted to give his team a chance to set up defense and stop the clock. We have rules that discuss trying to stop the clock with a foul to win a game. This is more complicated. Though the book isnt giving us a clear leg to stand on it does seem to me to be more complicated then a DOG which helps the defense. Though calling the DOG gives the winning coach a chance to call a TO if he has been smart enough to save one.

Case play
 

see case play - 9.2.10 sit A 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.

The official would be hurting his team, not the player.

Coach: "We have no timeouts left. If we make the basic make sure you grab the ball and get a delay-of-game warning to stop the clock"

Smart play. Are we now giving the coach a tech when he goes bonkers we just threw the rule book aside?