VIDEO REQUEST - North Florida vs FGCU

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Adam

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.

Sorry. My comment was in relation to chap's play where he ruled incorrectly and two others immediately agreed with his incorrect ruling, even though the right ruling and caseplay were immediately posted. I should have been more specific.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bucky

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.

Makes sense. Ignore the caseplay that addresses this almost exactly... and rule differently because a nearby door happened to be open.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by frezer11

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.....

It's not live until he's actually out of bounds and engaged in the throw-in, particularly if he's moving at a reasonable pace.

If the team or player is delaying, then we can start it earlier than that, but that's a rarity (significantly less than once per game).

[bucky]

Originally Posted by frezer11

I don't think that when the ball is considered live is a matter of opinion.

We will have to agree to disagree. It isn't a matter of opinion on a jump ball or a FT but it certainly is on a throw-in. Maybe not in your example but there are lots of other examples (I provided at least 2) that would prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Makes sense. Ignore the caseplay that addresses this almost exactly... and rule differently because a nearby door happened to be open.

Thanks for proving my point.


Case 4.42.3 also assists us. To me the main line is "...the throw-in count begins when the official determines B1 has had ample time to secure the ball, it need not be in B1's possession." Obviously this is for a situation involving a player causing his own delay but my point is that each throw-in essentially starts when an official makes that determination and there are countless situations where no two officials would agree on when the throw-in should start.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's not live until he's actually out of bounds and engaged in the throw-in, particularly if he's moving at a reasonable pace.

If the team or player is delaying, then we can start it earlier than that, but that's a rarity (significantly less than once per game).

Exactly.

A player holding the ball inbounds is not able to make a legal throwin from that inbounds location so it is not yet at their disposal for a throwin. It is available for a throwin only when it has been taken to a spot where a throwin can be legally made. It is also to be considered to be available and at their disposal when sufficient time has been allowed to do so but the team/player is delaying.

Considering it live as soon as a player grabs the ball, and thus starting the 5 count, is penalizing the throwing team by reducing the actual time they have to make the throwin below the full 5 seconds. If you are not starting the 5 count, however, you have not considered the ball live.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A player holding the ball inbounds is not able to make a legal throwin from that inbounds location so it is not yet at their disposal for a throwin. It is available for a throwin only when it has been taken to a spot where a throwin can be legally made. It is also to be considered to be available and at their disposal when sufficient time has been allowed to do so but the team/player is delaying.

The ball becomes live when:
b. On a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower.

A ball is at the disposal of a player when it is:
d. Available to a player after a goal and the official begins the throw-in count.

The throw-in and the throw-in count begin when the ball is at the
disposal of a player of the team entitled to it.

[socalif]

Correct call, partner helped, so move on, and thank him/her.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by socalif

Correct call, partner helped, so move on, and thank him/her.

That is not clear from the videos we have. We can not tell if the defender reached through the plane to hit the ball or hit the ball only on the inbounds side of the line. I assert that the C, from where he was, couldn't have been 100% sure either.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

Ok guys, you are correct that I made the incorrect call, but not for the reasons you seem to think you are.

If you refer back to the casebook a few years ago, there actually was a play in which the comments discussed this situation.

2011-2012 Casebook play 9-2-10 Situation A on page 74.

The initial play discussed the ball being knocked out of the inbounders hand. This we can all agree should be called, and a warning for delay issued.

The key part of the situation is the last part.

In situations where the clock is running and 5 or less seconds remain in the game, the throw in plane violation or interference with the ball should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. "However if the tactic in any way interferes with the throwers efforts to make a throw in, a technical foul SHALL BE CALLED even though no previous warning had been issued. In this case, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic.

The only reason my ruling was incorrect was because there were under 10 seconds, not under 5 seconds.

This comment seems very clear that if a team intentionally commits a delay violation in order to benefit themselves late in the game, a technical foul SHALL be called even if the warning had not been issued.

This comment does seem inconsistent with all of the rules referenced, and includes references to all of the rules which indicate a team delay shall be issued first, so I do understand where you guys are stating I am incorrect, but

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Sorry. My comment was in relation to chap's play where he ruled incorrectly and two others immediately agreed with his incorrect ruling, even though the right ruling and caseplay were immediately posted. I should have been more specific.

Refer to my comment above you about why you are not exactly as correct as you think you are.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

The only reason my ruling was incorrect was because there were under 10 seconds, not under 5 seconds.

I think you are reading more into that than is there. What you are quoting is a provision that says, essentially, if the clock is going to expire anyway, and the team that is behind commits a delay of game violation, just let the clock expire -- unless it is so bad you can't ignore it, in which case you jump over a warning to a T, as the warning would benefit that team and give them a chance to intercept the inbound pass.

But that was not your situation: the team that was ahead was the one that committed the delay. Stopping the clock wit a DOG allows the other team to inbound.

I don't think this play supports your T at all, even if there had been fewer than 5 seconds left.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I think you are reading more into that than is there. What you are quoting is a provision that says, essentially, if the clock is going to expire anyway, and the team that is behind commits a delay of game violation, just let the clock expire -- unless it is so bad you can't ignore it, in which case you jump over a warning to a T, as the warning would benefit that team and give them a chance to intercept the inbound pass.

But that was not your situation: the team that was ahead was the one that committed the delay. Stopping the clock wit a DOG allows the other team to inbound.

I don't think this play supports your T at all, even if there had been fewer than 5 seconds left.

Werd!

[Rich]

Originally Posted by adam

werd!

+1

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

Refer to my comment above you about why you are not exactly as correct as you think you are.

I've given you more credit than you deserve, sir.

Please re-read both case plays and take into account who is ahead.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

This comment does seem inconsistent with all of the rules referenced, and includes references to all of the rules which indicate a team delay shall be issued first, so I do understand where you guys are stating I am incorrect, but

The comment is for a very specific play, especially given the other case play mentioned and it's comments. Be careful about applying the case play for an extremely narrow scenario. You absolutely cannot divorce the comment you highlighted in red from the words immediately preceding the word "however": "In situations where the clock is running and 5 or less seconds remain in the game, the throw in plane violation or interference with the ball should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock."

A plain reading should lead you to conclude that the portion you highlighted, like the instructions to ignore, are ONLY applicable in this specific situation (trailing team trying to stop the clock with less than 5 seconds left.)