HS end game events

[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.

[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?

[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

[bucky]

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.

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)

Are you addressing the OP case? Because this info does not seem to apply to the OP case. The player did not merely slap the ball away. I did not go back and review all posts so maybe the case being discussed changed to this.

Anyway, recall 10-4-6. The list includes but is not limited to...

I get the sense that if a player kicked the ball 1/5 of a mile into the crowd, you would come out with a DOG. To me, 10-4-6 could easily be used to address the original post with a T.

Furthermore, the intent and purpose of the rules is all too familiar. It is indicated "...A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by rule."

Well, calling a DOG in that case clearly gives an advantage to a team not intended by rule.

Agree? Or am I missing something more? I agree totally if the player just slapped the ball away, but not for a more egregious act, such as that in the OP or my example of punting the ball. That is treated differently just as when more egregious fouls are treated differently than minor fouls.

(BTW - your 10-1-5 is currently 10-2-1) (guessing that was previously mentioned)

[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.