I had this play earlier in the season in a wRECk league game (NFHS rules). Team A makes a basket to take a 1 point lead with under 10 seconds left. A1 intentionally knocks the ball away from the court and into the hallway (door has to be kept open during games). This was clearly designed to prevent the ball from becoming live immediately and allowing the defense to get set up before Team B had a chance to inbound the ball.

My partner, who was the new trail, wanted to only give a delay warning. I insisted it should have been a technical foul for unsportsmanlike conduct because it was a clearly intentional act of changing direction and reaching out to strike the ball.

We eventually went with the unsportsmanlike tech call, and the guys proceeds to miss the two free throws, and then commits a 5 second violation on the inbound pass after the free throws.

Delay ...
 

I'm going with Rule 10-4-5-a:

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.

b. Failing when in possession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a whistle sounds.

c. The free thrower fails to be in the free-throw semicircle when the official is ready to administer the free throw unless the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect following a time-out or intermission.

d. Repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10.

At this critical point in the game, it seems apparent what the defender was trying to do. His team should not benefit from that.

+1

Yes, it would seem that "Into the hallway" counts as "Preventing the ball from being put into play".

Calling Nevadaref ...
 

While looking for the citation (above), I had hoped to come across a citation that stated that the official should not sound his whistle, i.e., ignore the delay, if there was less than five seconds on the clock (with the inbounding team ahead). I've looked twice, in the casebook, and in the Forum annual interpretations thread.

Did I dream this citation? Can anybody help me find it if, indeed, it really does exist.

Intent ...
 

Yet the caseplay is very specific that this should be a delay warning situation, not an immediate technical foul, even if the purpose of slapping the ball away is clearly so that the other team is unable to make a quick throw-in.

Someone please explain to me why we're inventing our own rulings that suit ones own personal sense of justice, when those rulings contradict a very specific and identical case play.

TPTB have told us very explicitly what they want called here. Why diverge?

+1.

I think the distinction is being made whether A1 has the ball. There seems to be a few points of possible violation here.

1. The ball is bouncing around.
2. A1 has the ball but the throw in has not started (ball is still dead).
3. A1 has the ball and the throw in has started (ball is live).

1 and 3 are obvious. 1 is a DOG, 3 is an immediate TF and a DOG warning.

The question is on 2, which is different than the case play quoted.

#1 still has two options, delaying of game or prevention of the ball becoming live. Both rules exist with no clear indication of when it moves from the warning to the immediate T.

A delay of game occurs during a dead ball. In the video, I consider it to be a live ball and thus a T. The scenario of a player having the ball with two hands and walking towards the endline is also a live ball IMO so I would go with a T. There was also the scenario of the dead ball being knocked into the hallway. IMO, that is too egregious to call a DOG and would go with a T. I would consider it unsporting, just as I would if the player grabbed the dead ball and punted it clear across the gym. It might fit the DOG case but IMO, it also fits the player technical foul rule (unsporting).

I think a lot of it comes down to when you think the ball is live and the extent of the act.

See case 6.1.2 sit B for some wording that somewhat describes an official's action in this/these types of scenarios after a goal.

So, you're starting the 5 count before the player gets OOB with the ball and in a position to make a legal throwin?

9.2.10 Situation A Comment

Thanks Nevadaref ...
 

I don't think that when the ball is considered live is a matter of opinion. If he's got the ball and is headed OB at a reasonable pace to make the throw-in, then it isn't live. Didn't we cover that in this thread like 2 pages ago?

bucky... ducky.... Nah, couldn't be.....