HS end game events

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm not 100% against your "suggestion" to charge an immediate technical foul for a ball that's slapped away to oblivion, I might even react in such a way in the heat of a real game, but I just don't see any caseplay justification for such action, and in fact, see a caseplay that states that we must warn, with the exception of 9.2.10 SITUATION A which seems to indicate that we can charge a technical without warning when there are five seconds or less in a game.

I would like to see something stronger than a "suggestion", maybe a citation like a caseplay, or an annual interpretation.

This is a great start: 10-3 Player Technical 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.

Can we take it to the next level because 10-3 alone seems to contradict Rule 10-1-5 and Caseplay 10.1.5.A, an existing caseplay that's very clear, which say to warn first.

Caseplays are mostly examples. 10-1-5 talks about delays, 10-3 prevention. A case covering delays doesn't imply how to cover situations that prevent the prompt live ball. I'd say that deliberately batting a ball into he stands prevents it from being made live promptly (its going to take a while to go get that ball) while knocking the ball 3-4 feet out if their grasp merely delays. It is a matter of degrees, just like contact fouls.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Caseplays are mostly examples. 10-1-5 talks about delays, 10-3 prevention. A case covering delays doesn't imply how to cover situations that prevent the prompt live ball. I'd say that deliberately batting a ball into he stands prevents it from being made live promptly (its going to take a while to go get that ball) while knocking the ball 3-4 feet out if their grasp merely delays. It is a matter of degrees, just like contact fouls.

Certainly a rational, well thought out, explanation, but I'm still looking for a citation, like a caseplay, or an annual interpretation that contradicts a rule (Rule 10-1-5), a caseplay (10.1.5 SITUATION D), and an annual interpretation (2000-01 NFHS Interpretations SITUATION 15), that specifically states, in very clear terms, that we warn first when a player delays the game by interfering with the ball, by slapping it away, following a goal.

9.2.10 SITUATION A comes pretty close, but only works with five seconds or less remaining in the game.

[Raymond]

I'm letting the ball hang out in the corner while the clocks runs.

Also, rule 10-4-5 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.

Not sure why there is a debate.

[ballgame99]

I had this call two years ago. The team behind scored and immediately grabbed the ball and threw it into the second level of the stands. The kid wound up and threw it like a discus in track. Coach was expecting me to stop the clock (there were 10 seconds to go) and issue a warning, I went strait to the T. If his guy had maybe batted it to the corner or something maybe I go with a delay warning, but if you chuck it in the cheap seats or intentionally throw it to the other end of the court (like in the IP) that becomes an unsporting act IMO.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ballgame99

I had this call two years ago. The team behind scored and immediately grabbed the ball and threw it into the second level of the stands. The kid wound up and threw it like a discus in track. Coach was expecting me to stop the clock (there were 10 seconds to go) and issue a warning, I went strait to the T. If his guy had maybe batted it to the corner or something maybe I go with a delay warning, but if you chuck it in the cheap seats or intentionally throw it to the other end of the court (like in the IP) that becomes an unsporting act IMO.

If he taps it to the corner why would you issue a delay warning? Was the other team in a hurry to inbound the ball? Would the tap actually have delayed what the throw-in team wanted to do?

[ballgame99]

Originally Posted by Raymond

If he taps it to the corner why would you issue a delay warning? Was the other team in a hurry to inbound the ball? Would the tap actually have delayed what the throw-in team wanted to do?

In hindsight and removed from the situation I wouldn't, but in the moment I may have. This is a good thread to think about these situations so we don't get caught off guard.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Possibly. Sounds familiar (I can still picture Patrick Ewing, 1985 NCAA Final, Villanova beats Georgetown, doing this, clock didn't stop for made baskets then, no technical, no warning, official just gave the ball to Villanova), but seeing is believing.

Also, wouldn't a newer casebook play "trump" the older casebook play?

This is from an old article. I am not sure if it came from Referee magazine or a NF magazine. " When the scoring team touches the ball after it goes through the basket, officials should end the practice immediately. For those old enough to remember the NCAA men’s final in 1985, the reason is clear. During the game, Georgetown players had been tapping the ball gently toward the Villanova thrower-in after a score. A friendly gesture? Think again. That speeded up play a bit, which was to Georgetown’s liking. However, the real consequence of allowing that practice happened at the end of the game. With five seconds left, the Hoyas scored to cut their deficit to two points. They had no timeouts left, and a Georgetown player slapped the ball away from Villanova. The official blew the whistle to stop the clock. (That was before the rules required the game clock to be stopped after scores in the last minute.) The officials warned Georgetown to leave the ball alone, but that forced Villanova to make a hotly contested throw-in with five seconds left rather than just let the clock run out. It managed the throw-in. But in an interview much later, one of the officials admitted they had been very lucky. By permitting Georgetown to “help” Villanova get the ball after a made basket, it set the stage for the slap of the ball at the end of the game and prompted the reflex whistle when it occurred. The official vowed never again to let even a friendly touch occur in any game he officiates. That is the right plan for all of us. Get the warning done early to prevent any temptations at a critical time and the need for a technical foul."

[so cal lurker]

Do y'all ever give verbal warnings below the the threshold of a formal warning? I'm frankly surprised how much some teams touch the ball after they score,and how rarely it seems to be addressed (from the stands I wouldn't know if there was a mild "knock it off" from the ref)--even when that team is setting up a press and gaining at least a marginal advantage from the contact. (And I have the un-quantifiable impression that it happens more with the referee teams that I would consider less skilled.)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Do y'all ever give verbal warnings below the the threshold of a formal warning? I'm frankly surprised how much some teams touch the ball after they score,and how rarely it seems to be addressed (from the stands I wouldn't know if there was a mild "knock it off" from the ref)--even when that team is setting up a press and gaining at least a marginal advantage from the contact. (And I have the un-quantifiable impression that it happens more with the referee teams that I would consider less skilled.)

I have, but simply touching the ball is not a delay. Often they touch the ball and it never delays the game. I do caution them with contacting the ball if it might, even more, a moment cause a delay, but if they do it bad enough there is no informal warning.

Peace

[bucky]

How about when the scoring team throws the ball to you, the new T official? I nearly always call a DOG if done.

Sometimes, the scoring team may strike the ball but if the inbounding team is not trying to obtain it or trying to go quickly, then it really isn't a delay. Many times in those instances a verbal warning to the offender/teammates will work.

Case by case.

The OP seemed to have something obvious. Seemed obvious that the player was intentionally mocking the rule/game and doing everything possible to coerce the official into stopping the clock and issuing a DOG. I say T in that situation. I might even let the clock run some more...and then call a T.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Not sure why there is a debate.

Because there is a rule (Rule 10-1-5), a casebook play (10.1.5 SITUATION D), and an annual interpretation (2000-01 NFHS Interpretations SITUATION 15), that specifically states, in very clear terms, that we warn first when a player delays the game by interfering with the ball, by slapping it away, following a goal.

10-1-5: A team shall not: Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes
the following and similar acts: Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay.

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)

2000-01 NFHS Interpretations SITUATION 15: Immediately following a goal in the first quarter by Al, A3 slaps the ball away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in. In the second quarter, A2 reaches through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary plane. RULING: The official shall sound his/her whistle and go to the table to have the scorer record a team warning for the specific delay after it has occurred. The specific warning is then reported to the head coach of Team A. Any subsequent delay for interfering with the ball following a basket or throw-in plane violation by Team A shall result in a technical foul charged to Team A. COMMENT: The three warning situations listed in Rule 4-46 are treated separately. (4-46; 9-2-11; lO-1-5c,d)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Because there is a rule (Rule 10-1-5), a casebook play (10.1.5 SITUATION D), and an annual interpretation (2000-01 NFHS Interpretations SITUATION 15), that specifically states, in very clear terms, that we warn first when a player delays the game by interfering with the ball, by slapping it away, following a goal.

I

We have another rule that specifically says we can call a technical foul in this situation. And calling a technical foul in this situation is the proper call, not calling a delay-of-game and giving an advantage to the team that is violating.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

... simply touching the ball is not a delay. Often they touch the ball and it never delays the game.

Sometimes the ball hits, and deflects, off a player as the ball comes through the net.

[SNIPERBBB]

Another important thing to bring up in this that should be mentioned though I am sure we all know this.. the delay warning is a Team T. Player preventing the ball from becoming live is a Player T.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

We have another rule that specifically says we can call a technical foul in this situation.

I can see your point except for the word "specifically". The rule (10-4-5 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) is a general rule, and may not apply to this situation since there is another rule, a casebook play, and an annual interpretation, that cover this specific situation, in a contradictory manner.

It is my contention that 10-4-5 covers situations like further delays after the resumption of play rule is put into effect, or when an immediate technical foul is warranted after a delay, free thrower refusing to move into semicircle, not after a timeout; or player intercepting the bounced ball from the lead official to the free thrower to request a timeout.

I have offered, on numerous occasions, a rule, a casebook play, and an annual interpretation, that specifically cover this situation, that we warn first when a player delays the game by interfering with the ball, by slapping it away, following a goal. These three citations can't be more specific, can't be more clear, and shouldn't be ignored, we warn first.

According to these three citations, it doesn't matter whether the player slaps the ball five feet, or fifty feet, we warn first (for delay of game), and if the team does it again we follow up with a team technical foul (for delay of game).

I would love to give an immediate technical foul to the player who slaps the ball into the twelfth row in the bleachers, but I have three citations regarding this specific situation that tell me to warn first.