HS end game events

[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.

[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.

[hamnegger]

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by hamnegger

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

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.