Originally Posted by Dad (Post 975489)

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?

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 975491)

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.

Originally Posted by PG_Ref (Post 975490)

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.

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 975494)

Now we are comparing apples and oranges..haha

It is a simple question and we are having a hard time finding a clear line.

If I use a DOG in a tight game with seconds left does the book clearly want a DOG to help the defense or with our judgement could it be something more. Honestly I wish we had more insight as I bet this happens more then we realize or hear about.

Originally Posted by gslefeb (Post 975492)

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.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 975472)

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

Originally Posted by letemplay (Post 975425)

"COULD" a delay of game T be called prior to warning in this sitch:

Following basket by B, B5 gets ball out of net and acts as if he's looking for ref, while at same time drifting back upcourt with ball, clearly (whether intentional or not is only known to him I suppose) delaying action to allow his team a press set up. Team A has player on baseline for throw in and other players in immediate position to field inbounds pass, but a few seconds at least are used by B5's actions. After getting to about 3 point line, he finally throws it half across court to baseline official, who passes it over to A1 to make inbound pass. While this definitely deserves a delay WARNING, could a T be called?

Originally Posted by letemplay (Post 975528)

I don't think I changed anything from OP. I just wanted to know straight up was it within the rules to go to a T, bypassing the DOG. Yes, I thought further explanation was due after seeing a few comments and so I posted the play as I saw it last night, but more so for the benefit of seeing why the OP. To me, whether or not the trailing coach has any time outs left is irrelevant (he surely would have used one if he had one).

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 975531)

The time left in the game is relevant as you can see from some of the rule citations that have followed.