VIDEO REQUEST - North Florida vs FGCU

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.