HS end game events

[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.)

[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 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.