In regards to OP if team knocks ball away and causes a delay that is what I am calling. First time warning. Ensuing times respond accordingly.

This is not as complicated a decision in Feeble as clock is stopping on every made basket in last 2 min.

Instead of a shot clock, my preference for a timing change in NFHS would be to stop the clock in the last minute after a made basket.

All acts are different resulting in all distances being different. Distance appears to be main factor when adjudicating this type of case.

So a player smacks a ball and it goes 15 feet away, versus a player smacks a ball in the same manner and force and it goes 3 feet you would adjudicate differently? does it matter that in one scenario a fan comes and help, or a player hustles more? Or is the manner in HOW the ball is struck doesn't matter, its' distance?.

You mention "By the rule book." You mention "Whistle, stop clock." You also indicated "You can't get into trouble if you go by the book." Now, I understand what you are saying/describing but I noticed something. Again, not trying to argue or point fingers with you BM. I just happen to notice an issue with wording that kinda relates to circular reasoning with the disposal/count thread. Where in the rule book is blowing the whistle required? Also, the case provided directly indicated to blow the whistle and made no mention of stopping the clock. Perhaps Rule 5-8 Art 2 c,d apply to this case but there is no mention of blowing the whistle. If we stuck to the actual case reading, we would not stop the clock.

I'm thinking the case play really needs to read that the official "..shall stop the clock..."

Another circular item perhaps? lol.

If all that has to be spelled out we are in trouble.

Life's a whole lot easier if you just referee the damned game, isn't it?

It is. Too much thinking hurts.

Yes, agree, but there are some that rely strongly on black and white wording.

Unsporting ...
 

This exact situation (with the addition that Team A was out of timeouts, and it was eleven seconds) was discussed at our monthly meeting this morning. Our local IAABO board interpreter was of the opinion that 10-2-4, a team unsporting technical foul, would be appropriate here, whereas a team delay of game technical foul would not be appropriate because it requires a previous warning.

It's IAABO (though based on NFHS rules, and interpretations), it's local, but it's worth some thought.

Hmm, imagine calling T in this situation, where have we read that before?

Unsporting ...
 

In don't recall anybody suggesting to charge a technical foul for an unsporting act, at least one Forum member suggested charging a technical foul for a delay of game.

No I clearly said I would call a T and it wouldn't be for delay of game.

Go back and reread the thread and you'll see I even gave a rules reference for the T I would call.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Unsporting ...
 

Here's what my interpreter would hang his hat on: 10-2-4 Team Technical: Shall not commit an unsporting foul.

Note: I was referring to the most recent thread, not the older one.

10-4-5a is sufficient for issuing a Player Technical.