HS end game events
 

Curious about a couple of things from the last couple of minutes of a close game last night. HS varsity tournament.

#1. White running half court offense. Half hearted screen being set that the the dribbler doesn’t appear to be planning to use. Whistle from the official clos to the play. In the stands, we can’t figure out what happened. Inbounded for the same team. We hear after the game that the ref stoped play to tell the player defending the potential screener to stop poking the screener or he’d be ejected. No foul. Does that make sense? Seems to me it’s either a foul or play continues, with, perhaps, a “knock it off” while play continues.

#2. Just under a minute, the team that is behind scores to bring it within 4. Player on that team grabs bal and makes a chest pass throwing the ball all the way to the corner of the court where there are no players. Ref immediately whistles and issues delay of game warning. Right call? Or just let clock keep running while ball is fetched? Or is it so blatant that it should be an immediate T? The stop and warning was clearly beneficial to the team “warned.”

(There was a third odd clock stoppage with under 20 seconds. Team leading by two inbounding after other team scored. Touchdown pass for a dunk to lead by four. Whistle. Nothing called. Still no idea why.)

Odd end of game.

I say T. If you're intentionally throwing it away from everyone else, that's clearly unsportsmanlike, not to mention trying to use the delay rule to your unfair advantage.

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

After A Team Warning ...
 

The old Patrick Ewing trick.

Disagree.

The rule and casebook play is very clear, warn first.

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)

Resumption Of Play Procedure ...
 

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)?

Less Than Five Seconds ...
 

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 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.

Seventeen Years Ago ...
 

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)

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

Good Point ...
 

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.

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

Connecticut, The Show Me State ???
 

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?

Five Seconds ...
 

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)

Interesting ...
 

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.

Suggestion ...
 

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.

Citation Needed ...
 

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.

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.

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?

In hindsight and removed from the situation I wouldn't, but in the moment I may have. This is a good thread to think about these situations so we don't get caught off guard.

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."

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

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.

Rule, Casebook Play, And Annual Interpretation ...
 

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)

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

Not An Intentional Act ...
 

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

Another important thing to bring up in this that should be mentioned though I am sure we all know this.. the delay warning is a Team T. Player preventing the ball from becoming live is a Player T.

Specifically ...
 

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.

Which is the infraction I would be penalizing on this play.

Facts ...
 

Despite the fact that there is a rule, a casebook play, and an annual interpretation, that say to do otherwise.

Because there is 10-4-5 that says I can. I have a rules based option that will prevent an offending team from getting an unintended advantage of a different rule.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Warning ...
 

If the game is delayed by any of the following: commit a violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane, contact with the free thrower or a huddle of two or more players in the lane by either team prior to a free throw, interfering with the ball following a goal, or not having the court ready for play following any time-out, then by rule, a warning must be given prior to a technical foul being charged.

Delaying the game by interfering with the ball following a goal by slapping the ball away is a perfect example of the third type of delay, and thus, requires a warning.

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)

Kicked Ball ...
 

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.

Illegal Advantage ...
 

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.

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.

Five Seconds ...
 

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.

Intent ???
 

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.

No Delay ...
 

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.

"slapping it away"

What about grabbing the ball and throwing it? What about kicking the ball away? If we want to get specific about what the rule says, then the rule says "slapping" the ball away is an example of a delay that warrants a warning.

Interfering With The Ball ...
 

Actually, a casebook play states that slapping the ball away is a delay that warrants a warning. The rule states that interfering with the ball following a goal warrants a warning, or if already warned, a team technical foul.

Grabbing, throwing, kicking, and slapping can all be examples of interfering with the ball following a goal.

Granted, maybe these examples should not all warrant the same penalty, but, as the rule now stands, it's clear how officials should react to such activity that interferes with the ball following a goal, a warning, or if already warned, a team technical foul.

10-4-5 is also clear about "preventing" the ball from becoming live. I don't know why you think your citation trumps 10-4-5.

All your examples involve accidental touching or deflection. The deflection could be purposeful, or the scoring team can grab the ball and throw it to the official. If the throw-in team is not in the vicinity, there is no delay.

No Delay, No Penalty ...
 

Agreed. Sometimes the scoring team has the ball drop right in their lap, and rather than just leave it there for somebody to trip on, they intentionally try to put it in an easy position for the inbounding team to pick up. If this is the scenario, even though there was intent, there was no delay, so no penalty.

I'm not a big fan of the ball being tipped to an official. I usually just try to get out of the way, or if that isn't possible, I just leave the ball in place, or maybe, tip it to an inbounding player. If the team keeps doing that, I may give them an "unofficial oral warning", like, "Please stop tipping the ball to an official after a basket". If they keep doing that after my "unofficial oral warning", I may move on to a real written warning. Like I said, I'm not a big fan of players tipping the ball to officials after a score. But that's probably just me.

Gray Rules ...
 

I just "barely" think so (mainly due to the specificity of the delay rule with its four delays spelled out , and the specificity of the casebook play), and would like more clarification from the NFHS, there's just too much "gray" in these delay-interference rules.

Had this tonight. Losing team cuts the lead to 4 with 25 seconds and 1 timeout (???) remaining. Losing team coach yells at his best player "throw it!" and the player chucks the ball 10 rows into the stands after the made basket. Player technical per NFHS 10-4-5-a, fouled the kid out. Brought coaches together to explain, administration wasn't super smooth but we got the play right.

Holy smokes.... Tempting to have a stern word with the coach about unsporting behavior from him as well......

My apologies for digging more into this topic but....

1) The Georgetown game indicated that they were,during the game, trying to speed the game along by giving the ball to the opponent immediately after GT scored. That action provided an advantage to GT. So, shouldn't there be a warning for "delay" and "haste"?

2) (mostly for Billy) The case indicates "Immediately following a goal by A1, A3 slaps the ball away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in." I interpret this case to equate to something that is seen frequently in today's game. Team A scores and B1 is trying to inbound the ball quickly. A1 slaps the ball away from B1. To me "slaps" is a word that does not contain any misconduct, unsporting behavior, egregiousness, or a long distance of travel. The case appears to be, again in my interpretation, involving a very specific situation that is quite common. It is a very good description of a well-known situation and thus a DOG warning is issued. Now, sending the ball into the stands by chucking/kicking or, in case of OP, chest-passing to other end of court are also very specific acts that do contain misconduct, unsporting behavior, long distance of travel, etc. They are also well-known situations and a T is warranted, argued by none watching the game.

3) Arem - Wished you would have allowed clock to run for 25 seconds, lol.


Dumb of me to submit that second part but I already typed it. I hate to see carpal tunnel syndrome go to waste.

That would have been awesome. Or let the clock run until the ball was back in the winning team's possession and THEN call the T.

I do not understand why this post caused so much confusion when it was originally posted.

I think its quite simple. If you would give a technical to a player for throwing a ball to a corner of the gym or into the stands after a stoppage of play, why would you not do it after a made basket? Unsporting behavior is unsporting behavior, regardless of the situation.

Should have called his last timeout and asked, "Just in case we score again, any of you guys go by BillyMac?"

I laughed out loud, enough for someone upstairs to hear me.

Clarification ...
 

Agree with Toad.

I have absolutely no problem with unsporting technical foul being charged here (as we've been instructed by our IAABO State (Connecticut) Interpreter).

Delay of game technical foul with no previous delay of game warning? In my weak opinion, that's a "gray area" under NFHS rules that can use a little more clarification.

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

Clarification ...
 

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.