HS end game events

[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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

We have another rule that specifically says we can call a technical foul in this situation.

I can see your point except for the word "specifically". The 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) is a general rule, and may not apply to this situation since there is another rule, a casebook play, and an annual interpretation, that cover this specific situation, in a contradictory manner.

It is my contention that 10-4-5 covers situations like further delays after the resumption of play rule is put into effect, or when an immediate technical foul is warranted after a delay, free thrower refusing to move into semicircle, not after a timeout; or player intercepting the bounced ball from the lead official to the free thrower to request a timeout.

I have offered, on numerous occasions, a rule, a casebook play, and an annual interpretation, that specifically cover this situation, that we warn first when a player delays the game by interfering with the ball, by slapping it away, following a goal. These three citations can't be more specific, can't be more clear, and shouldn't be ignored, we warn first.

According to these three citations, it doesn't matter whether the player slaps the ball five feet, or fifty feet, we warn first (for delay of game), and if the team does it again we follow up with a team technical foul (for delay of game).

I would love to give an immediate technical foul to the player who slaps the ball into the twelfth row in the bleachers, but I have three citations regarding this specific situation that tell me to warn first.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I can see your point except for the word "specifically". The 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) is a general rule, and may not apply to this situation since there is another rule, a casebook play, and an annual interpretation, that cover this specific situation, in a contradictory manner.

It is my contention that 10-4-5 covers situations like further delays after the resumption of play rule is put into effect, or when an immediate technical foul is warranted after a delay, free thrower refusing to move into semicircle, not after a timeout; or player intercepting the bounced ball from the lead official to the free thrower to request a timeout.

I have offered, on numerous occasions, a rule, a casebook play, and an annual interpretation, that specifically cover this situation, that we warn first when a player delays the game by interfering with the ball, by slapping it away, following a goal. These three citations can't be more specific, can't be more clear, and shouldn't be ignored, we warn first.

According to these three citations, it doesn't matter whether the player slaps the ball five feet, or fifty feet, we warn first (for delay of game), and if the team does it again we follow up with a team technical foul (for delay of game).

I would love to give an immediate technical foul to the player who slaps the ball into the twelfth row in the bleachers, but I have three citations regarding this specific situation that tell me to warn first.

All good, except your case actually isn't specific since it doesn't clarify the difference between delay and prevent. You just have another general case. At some point, the action moves from a delay to a prevention. I suggest that if a player has to leave the court to retrieve the ball, they have prevented the ball from promptly becoming live. I'd also suggest that it also the case if they throw it into the other end of the court. However, if they knock it 2-3 feet, is is merely a delay.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I suggest that if a player has to leave the court to retrieve the ball, they have prevented the ball from promptly becoming live.

Intent to delay. Intent to prevent. Intent to stop the clock. A few feet. Several feet. All the way to the moon.

All perfectly valid points.

I believe that the NFHS needs to clarify what penalties should be charged when a team, or a player on that team, interferes with the ball following a goal.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Intent to delay. Intent to prevent. Intent to stop the clock. A few feet. Several feet. All the way to the moon.

All perfectly valid points.

I believe that the NFHS needs to clarify what penalties should be charged when a team, or a player on that team, interferes with the ball following a goal.

I think common sense needs to be imparted into the decision making progress. There is a difference between delaying a team that is actively attempting to make a throw-in (10-1-5), and preventing the ball from becoming live (10-4-5) by throwing/tapping it to some other part of the gym.

I know one aspect of 10-1-5 that you fail to grasp is that is not automatically a delay if the scoring team taps the ball after a made basket. If the opponent is not attempting to get the ball, they have not been delayed from doing anything.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

... one aspect of 10-1-5 that you fail to grasp is that is not automatically a delay if the scoring team taps the ball after a made basket. If the opponent is not attempting to get the ball, they have not been delayed from doing anything.

Now why would you think that? I never said that, and strongly disagree that any tap, tip, touch, etc., is an "automatic delay" that deserves a whistle, a warning, or a technical foul. Sometimes it's just play on. And sometimes the ball gets accidentally kicked as a player turns to go the other way, and the ball can go pretty far, but still no "automatic delay", maybe a whistle to get the ball out from under the bleachers, and then administer a run the endline throwin, but no warning, or technical foul here either.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Sometimes the ball hits, and deflects, off a player as the ball comes through the net.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

If there's no illegal advantage, like the ball bouncing of a player's shoulder after passing through the net, then we don't sound the whistle.

[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)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

... if a player kicked the ball 1/5 of a mile into the crowd ...

In the heat if the game I'm sure that I would come up with a technical foul here, and I could probably sell it to the offending team's coach, and to my assigner, but I'm not sure if it's the correct call by the book.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

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

I am not saying that the offending team is not gaining an illegal advantage, it certainly is, the illegal advantage of delaying the throwin, possibly to get a few extra seconds to set up a full court press.

The DOG warning doesn't give an advantage, the illegal interference with the ball after a goal is what gives one team an advantage not intended by rule.

Whether the ball is tapped a few inches, or slapped a few feet, or tossed into the corner, or thrown into the bleachers, it's delaying the throwin by the opposing team and the rulebook directs us on how to handle the situation. In all cases the clock is stopped and the offending team is given a warning, or if it was already warned, is given technical foul.

The illegal advantage is that the team delayed the throwin, and the rulebook directs us on how to handle that illegal advantage. Sound the whistle and do what the rulebook and casebook tell us to do.

If there's no illegal advantage, like the ball bouncing of a player's shoulder after passing through the net, then we don't sound the whistle.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I am not saying that the offending team is not gaining an illegal advantage, it certainly is, the illegal advantage of delaying the throwin, possibly to get a few extra seconds to set up a full court press.

The DOG warning doesn't give an advantage, the illegal interference with the ball after a goal is what gives one team an advantage not intended by rule.

Whether the ball is tapped a few inches, or slapped a few feet, or tossed into the corner, or thrown into the bleachers, it's delaying the throwin by the opposing team and the rulebook directs us on how to handle the situation. In all cases the clock is stopped and the offending team is given a warning, or if it was already warned, is given technical foul.

The illegal advantage is that the team delayed the throwin, and the rulebook directs us on how to handle that illegal advantage. Sound the whistle and do what the rulebook and casebook tell us to do.

If there's no illegal advantage, like the ball bouncing of a player's shoulder after passing through the net, then we don't sound the whistle.

I understand but OP involved intent to stop the clock, not delay the offensive team from inbounding. The illegal advantage is that they got the ref to stop the clock, not delaying the throw-in by the opposing team.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

The illegal advantage is that they got the ref to stop the clock ...

Which we've been instructed not to do, but only with five seconds or less remaining in the game. It appears the NFHS wants us to stop the clock during all other similar situations.