HS end game events

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Here is the rule that supports your ruling (numbers may be off, copied/pasted from an older version of the book):

Doesn't 10-3-5 refer to further delays after the resumption of play procedure is put into effect (free throw, throwins, etc.) and there are further delays, or delays that are not covered by the resumption of play procedure, i.e. free thrower not moving into the semicircle for a free throw (not after a timeout)?

[BillyMac]

Regarding slapping the ball away from the inbounder late in the game, isn't there a interpretation that says to ignore if there is less than five seconds left in the game? I can't find that interpretation! Help from Nevadaref please.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Regarding slapping the ball away from the inbounder late in the game, isn't there a interpretation that says to ignore if there is less than five seconds left in the game? I can't find that interpretation! Help from Nevadaref please.

I don't know what year:

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)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

9.2.10 SITUATION A: ... 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 ...

What does this (above) mean? Is this what Camron Rust, and SNIPERBBB, are referring to? Does it only apply to "five or less seconds" (see entire caseplay in above post)?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What does this (above) mean? Is this what Camron Rust, and SNIPERBBB, are referring to? Does it only apply to "five or less seconds" (see entire caseplay in above post)?

No.

The cases you cite, while interesting and related, do not preclude what I've suggested.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The cases you cite, while interesting and related, do not preclude what I've suggested.

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.

[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.

[hamnegger]

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Doesn't 10-3-5 refer to further delays after the resumption of play procedure is put into effect (free throw, throwins, etc.) and there are further delays, or delays that are not covered by the resumption of play procedure, i.e. free thrower not moving into the semicircle for a free throw (not after a timeout)?

I don't think so, at least not solely. I believe 10-3-5 is intended to also address an egregious action such as throwing the ball into the 10th row or to the other end of the court (preventing the ball from being put in play) vs. a deflection which delays the throwin slightly.

[BillyMac]

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)

SITUATION 13: A1 is at the free-throw line to shoot a free throw. The lead official bounces the ball to A1, and B1, who is in one of the free-throw lane spaces, a) reaches out and intercepts the bounce pass without breaking the vertical plane of the free-throw lane with either foot and then requests a time-out; or b) breaks the vertical plane of the free-throw lane and intercepts the bounce pass and then requests a time-out. RULING: This is NOT a warning for delay situation, as outlined by Rule 4-46. In both situations, a technical foul shall be called for B1 delaying the game by preventing the ball from being put in play. (10-3-7a)

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Doesn't 10-3-5 refer to further delays after the resumption of play procedure is put into effect (free throw, throwins, etc.) and there are further delays, or delays that are not covered by the resumption of play procedure, i.e. free thrower not moving into the semicircle for a free throw (not after a timeout)?

Isn't Situation 13 a good example of 10-3-5?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I don't think so, at least not solely. I believe 10-3-5 is intended to also address an egregious action such as throwing the ball into the 10th row or to the other end of the court (preventing the ball from being put in play) vs. a deflection which delays the throwin slightly.

I see your point, but the casebook play is very clear: A3 slaps the ball away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in.

Slapped away to the corner, or up to the tenth row, it's still an actionless contest, and no mention is made regarding how far the ball is slapped away.

[SNIPERBBB]

Pretty sure there was an older casebook play where this is a direct-to-T play.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

Pretty sure there was an older casebook play where this is a direct-to-T play.

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?

[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.)