Delay of game question

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by letemplay

Team B has not had a delay warning yet and down by 3 with about 10 secs left and out of time outs...

Don't you think you should have included this information in the original posting? We answer the question then the important details are changed.

[packersowner]

Along these lines, is there an official scorekeeping record of the DOG warning? I generally have the table make a notation as to the time/quarter, etc. I have never been clear as to whether they should be doing something else, such as writing the player number down, etc.

[BigT]

How I am reading the OP is this. They want you to call a DOG to stop the clock so that IF they steal it they have more time to call a time out or run a play to win the game. Isnt this the definition of an unsporting act. If we call the DOG havent we helped that team have a shot at winning the game? I need to read the case book as someone said above.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BigT

How I am reading the OP is this. They want you to call a DOG to stop the clock so that IF they steal it they have more time to call a time out or run a play to win the game. Isnt this the definition of an unsporting act. If we call the DOG havent we helped that team have a shot at winning the game? I need to read the case book as someone said above.

Warning for delay:

Interfering with the ball following a goal.

This is a warning. There are no added complications. It's not the defenses fault an official took too long to blow the whistle.

If it's the second warning in the game - T.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Dad

Warning for delay:

Interfering with the ball following a goal.

This is a warning. There are no added complications. It's not the defenses fault an official took too long to blow the whistle.

If it's the second warning in the game - T.

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.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

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.

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

[UNIgiantslayers]

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.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

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.

[BigT]

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.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BigT

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.

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.)

[Dad]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

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.)

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?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BigT

How I am reading the OP is this. They want you to call a DOG to stop the clock so that IF they steal it they have more time to call a time out or run a play to win the game. Isnt this the definition of an unsporting act. If we call the DOG havent we helped that team have a shot at winning the game? I need to read the case book as someone said above.

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

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

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).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by letemplay

"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

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).

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

[letemplay]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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

Yes, I see what you mean. Middle of game, nobody thinks otherwise of a DOG. Good point.