Delay of game question
 

"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?

I don't really see how this is different from any other situation of "interfering with the ball after a goal" or whatever the specific wording is.

I would not let him get that far away before blowing it dead to issue warning and record it in book.


I wish I had a cool signature

You can always call a T if it rises to the unsporting level. You are not required to warn first. Just like some coaches think they are entitled to 2 techs before ejection..no matter what. Not true. You can go straight to flagrant if the actions warrant it.

In your situation, I would blow the whistle when i see him grab it and not release it. Head to table for the delay warning. If he still isn't giving up the ball then T, obviously. I wouldn't let him wander that far with the ball as others have pointed out.

Actual play
 

Team B has not had a delay warning yet and down by 3 with about 10 secs left and out of time outs, scores 2 pt goal. B5 grabs ball before A can get it, possibly hoping for delay whistle which stops clock in their favor. Officials are reluctant to hit whistle for this reason, possibly, I don't know, but no stoppage occurred. B gets to set up press and almost gets steal before A controls and advances until final horn.

The case book has a play about delay during the last few seconds. Apply it.

Oh man I got something better than a T. Probably really bad yet really tempting...

That clock is running with under 10 seconds I dont blow my whistle at all and hope he throws me the ball. Then I walk to the guy out of bounds and slowly hand him the ball. And since by now they delayed the offense from getting the ball and its under 5 seconds under my breath I say do not throw, as the time will run out before he has to throw it. If the coach tries to give me any crap I will say if your kid hadnt delayed them getting the ball the 5 second count would have started a long time ago coach....

Turn my back and display an evil grin.

Honestly if a team (player isnt smart enough) to wait until about 3-4 seconds into that count and toss the ball high and deep into their front court and realize that by the time it flies in the air, is controlled by the defensive team and dribbled then shot that time will be gone then they deserve to lose. Not like college where the clock stops on a made basket and I see too many teams not understand how to use up 10 seconds easily not giving their opponent a last shot chance.

I believe it's five seconds, not ten. :(

Whistle should have blown long before this for a DOG warning.

Why would you want to call a T when you have a rule book remedy already in place?

As soon as the delay happens I'm blowing my whistle. Waiting here doesn't make any sense to me.

It's 5 seconds to the delay, but I think BigT is saying you can burn about 10 seconds if you play it right. Once the ball has gone through the hoop, the opposing team can easily burn 2-3 seconds retrieving the ball and getting OOB to begin the throwin count. If the thrower then uses 4.9 second before releasing the throw, and tosses the ball high in the air toward the other end of the court, chances are that the clock runs out while the ball is in the air.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Players intentionally touch the ball after a made basket all the time and we call a delay. There is nothing in the rule book to change this rule until the final five seconds of the game.

I like this one too. And another reason I think leaning toward the T is the right call. Though if I were watching Dad and he called a DOG I wouldnt have an issue either. Again sometimes there are just judgements we have to make.

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.

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