Delay of game question

[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.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by Dad

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

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

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.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

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.

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?

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Dad

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?

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.

[PG_Ref]

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.

[gslefeb]

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.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

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.

Wow PG_Ref great find and in my opinion with all the details of what happened in that game that is what I am using on that kid.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Dad

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

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

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.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BigT

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.

The OP later said there were no TOs left. I could easily imagine the coach telling his players to go for a violation to stop the clock.