10-4-5 is also clear about "preventing" the ball from becoming live. I don't know why you think your citation trumps 10-4-5.

All your examples involve accidental touching or deflection. The deflection could be purposeful, or the scoring team can grab the ball and throw it to the official. If the throw-in team is not in the vicinity, there is no delay.

No Delay, No Penalty ...
 

Agreed. Sometimes the scoring team has the ball drop right in their lap, and rather than just leave it there for somebody to trip on, they intentionally try to put it in an easy position for the inbounding team to pick up. If this is the scenario, even though there was intent, there was no delay, so no penalty.

I'm not a big fan of the ball being tipped to an official. I usually just try to get out of the way, or if that isn't possible, I just leave the ball in place, or maybe, tip it to an inbounding player. If the team keeps doing that, I may give them an "unofficial oral warning", like, "Please stop tipping the ball to an official after a basket". If they keep doing that after my "unofficial oral warning", I may move on to a real written warning. Like I said, I'm not a big fan of players tipping the ball to officials after a score. But that's probably just me.

Gray Rules ...
 

I just "barely" think so (mainly due to the specificity of the delay rule with its four delays spelled out , and the specificity of the casebook play), and would like more clarification from the NFHS, there's just too much "gray" in these delay-interference rules.

Had this tonight. Losing team cuts the lead to 4 with 25 seconds and 1 timeout (???) remaining. Losing team coach yells at his best player "throw it!" and the player chucks the ball 10 rows into the stands after the made basket. Player technical per NFHS 10-4-5-a, fouled the kid out. Brought coaches together to explain, administration wasn't super smooth but we got the play right.

Holy smokes.... Tempting to have a stern word with the coach about unsporting behavior from him as well......

My apologies for digging more into this topic but....

1) The Georgetown game indicated that they were,during the game, trying to speed the game along by giving the ball to the opponent immediately after GT scored. That action provided an advantage to GT. So, shouldn't there be a warning for "delay" and "haste"?

2) (mostly for Billy) The case indicates "Immediately following a goal by A1, A3 slaps the ball away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in." I interpret this case to equate to something that is seen frequently in today's game. Team A scores and B1 is trying to inbound the ball quickly. A1 slaps the ball away from B1. To me "slaps" is a word that does not contain any misconduct, unsporting behavior, egregiousness, or a long distance of travel. The case appears to be, again in my interpretation, involving a very specific situation that is quite common. It is a very good description of a well-known situation and thus a DOG warning is issued. Now, sending the ball into the stands by chucking/kicking or, in case of OP, chest-passing to other end of court are also very specific acts that do contain misconduct, unsporting behavior, long distance of travel, etc. They are also well-known situations and a T is warranted, argued by none watching the game.

3) Arem - Wished you would have allowed clock to run for 25 seconds, lol.


Dumb of me to submit that second part but I already typed it. I hate to see carpal tunnel syndrome go to waste.

That would have been awesome. Or let the clock run until the ball was back in the winning team's possession and THEN call the T.

I do not understand why this post caused so much confusion when it was originally posted.

I think its quite simple. If you would give a technical to a player for throwing a ball to a corner of the gym or into the stands after a stoppage of play, why would you not do it after a made basket? Unsporting behavior is unsporting behavior, regardless of the situation.

Should have called his last timeout and asked, "Just in case we score again, any of you guys go by BillyMac?"

I laughed out loud, enough for someone upstairs to hear me.

Clarification ...
 

Agree with Toad.

I have absolutely no problem with unsporting technical foul being charged here (as we've been instructed by our IAABO State (Connecticut) Interpreter).

Delay of game technical foul with no previous delay of game warning? In my weak opinion, that's a "gray area" under NFHS rules that can use a little more clarification.

Doesn't it seem fair to say there is justification in the rules to go either way in this situation?

Clarification ...
 

Yes, but there is more justification for an unsporting technical foul than there is for a delay of game technical foul without a previous warning. It's a matter of degrees of justification, and an unsporting technical foul would be 100% dead on, with very little negative evidence from rulebook, and casebook citations (thanks to the phrase, "not limited to"). The delay of game technical foul without a previous warning could be the way to go, but the NFHS rulebook, and casebook, citations, in my opinion, are just not specific enough, and need some more clarification.