VIDEO REQUEST - North Florida vs FGCU

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

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?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by md longhorn

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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?

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.

[Camron Rust]

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.

#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.

[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.

[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)