VIDEO REQUEST - North Florida vs FGCU

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's what I'm asking. If instead of slapping the ball out of the player's hands, the defensive player simply slaps the ball away before the offensive player can get his hands on the ball, aren't we calling a delay here?

Yes, that is a delay. I had interpreted your original statement as slapping the ball away from an inbounder who had possession of it, but just had not ran out of bounds to begin the throw-in yet.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

That's what I'm asking. If instead of slapping the ball out of the player's hands, the defensive player simply slaps the ball away before the offensive player can get his hands on the ball, aren't we calling a delay here?

Originally Posted by frezer11

Yes, that is a delay. I had interpreted your original statement as slapping the ball away from an inbounder who had possession of it, but just had not ran out of bounds to begin the throw-in yet.

It could be either a delay or a T depending on how you judge the action. Do they delay it or prevent it? Do they just knock the ball out of reach or do they bat/throw it into the stands? (10-4-5a)

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It could be either a delay or a T depending on how you judge the action. Do they delay it or prevent it. Do they just knock the ball out of reach or do they bat/throw it into the stands. (10-4-5a)

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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..

10.1.5 SITUATION D: Immediately following a goal by A1, A3 slaps the ball
away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in. RULING: The official
shall sound his/her whistle and go to the table to have the scorer record a team
warning for delay. The warning shall then be reported to the head coach of Team
A. Any subsequent delay by Team A shall result in a team technical foul charged
to Team A. (4-47-3)

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10.1.5 SITUATION D: Immediately following a goal by A1, A3 slaps the ball
away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in. RULING: The official
shall sound his/her whistle and go to the table to have the scorer record a team
warning for delay. The warning shall then be reported to the head coach of Team
A. Any subsequent delay by Team A shall result in a team technical foul charged
to Team A. (4-47-3)

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.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

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".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10.1.5 SITUATION D: Immediately following a goal by A1, A3 slaps the ball
away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in. RULING: The official
shall sound his/her whistle and go to the table to have the scorer record a team
warning for delay. The warning shall then be reported to the head coach of Team
A. Any subsequent delay by Team A shall result in a team technical foul charged
to Team A. (4-47-3)

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

I'm going with Rule 10-4-5-a: A player shall not: Delay the game by acts such as: Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play. At this critical point in the game, it seems apparent what the defender was trying to do. His team should not benefit from that.

Originally Posted by bucky

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

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10.1.5 SITUATION D: Immediately following a goal by A1, A3 slaps the ball
away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in. RULING: The official
shall sound his/her whistle and go to the table to have the scorer record a team
warning for delay. The warning shall then be reported to the head coach of Team
A. Any subsequent delay by Team A shall result in a team technical foul charged
to Team A. (4-47-3)

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

9.2.10 Situation A Comment

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

9.2.10 Situation A Comment

9.2.10 SITUATION A: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through
the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Team B has not been
warned previously for a throw-in plane infraction. RULING: B1 is charged with a
technical foul and it also results in the official having a team warning recorded
and reported to the head coach. 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. (4-
47-1; 10-1-5b, c; 10-3-10)

[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

[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

[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.)