Warning for Delay?
 

Team A scores to pull within 2 points of Team B with 13 seconds left and the clock running. After the score A-1 knocks the ball away and it rolls about 15 ft to a back wall of the gym. I held my whistle for delay as it seemed an unfair advantage for Team A to stop the clock to issue the warning. As I wait for Team B to go and get the ball, Coach of team A starts screaming for me to start my 5 sec count.... I blew the whistle and told coach A that his team knocked the ball away etc. Of course Team A steals the ensuing throw in and hits a three pointer at the buzzer to win the game. I know I probably shouldn't have blown the whistle here, but how would you guys have handled this end of game.

If A knocked it away and had not been warned earlier on any of the the warnings, id let it run. Start my count when B gets to a normal throw in area. If B is not going to get it id still let it run for what i would think was a reasonable time to get the ball from the wall and get to throw in area....then start counting. I would not stop the game to explain anything to the coach.

By The Book ...
 

By the rulebook. Whistle, stop clock. Delay warning for interfering with the ball after a made goal (technical foul if already warned for delay) written in scorebook. Team B gets a run the endline throwin.

You can't get into trouble if you go by the book.

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)

Key here is thirteen seconds. Five seconds or less, I'm letting the clock run, as advised by a NFHS casebook play.

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)

Deja Vu
 

Didn't we recently discuss this question?

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...me-events.html

I have never (with apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) been averse to issue a formal Scorebook Warning. But in the OP as described, I would have charged A1 with a TF for Delay of Game and issued a Scorebook Warning to Team A for a Delay of Game.

MTD, Sr.

Interference ...
 

The original post was, almost word for word, the same as 10.1.5 SITUATION D, which ends up with a delay of game warning. It's indisputable.

An immediate technical foul, without the benefit of a warning, would be for something like interfering with the thrower’s efforts to make a throw-in, like the defender reaching through the boundary plane and knocking the ball out of the inbounder's hands.

In one case the defender is interfering with the ball, in the other case the defender is interfering with the inbounder.

That's a big difference.

You should have called a delay of game warning (a T if one had been previously given) and given the offended team the ball back with the right to run the endline.

You compounded matters by (1) stopping to clock to "chat" with the coach. If you were to stop the clock at this point its to call a delay of game and/or a T (although I wouldn't call the T). Those are your only 2 options. There is no scenario to stop the clock to chat with a coach.

The key in my decision to issue a TF in OP is that the Ball was knocked 15 feet away from the End Line, meaning, to me, that the Ball was knocked quite a way from the Team who was entitled to make the Throw-in. If the ball had been knocked only a few feet I would only issued a Delay of Game Warning.

MTD, Sr.

He knocked the ball away and it rolled 15 feet. What if it only rolled 13, would you still T? Hitting the ball 3 feet or 15 is the same act, just a different outcome. I don't think we should apply harsher penalties based on distance ball traveled here. Just my $.02.

Not An Idle Threat ...
 

Hey. Along with an extra whistle, I've got a tape measure in my pocket, I know how to use it, and I'm not afraid to use it.

Blow the whistle, delay of game.

I would have started my 5 Second count around 9 or 10 second mark.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

This is also all the more reason to issue delay warnings earlier in the game.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Indeed, this has been discussed. Deecee's point is understood however, for me, distance traveled and method influence harshness of penalty. Lightly slapping the ball 3 feet away is much different than punting the ball 40 yards into the stands.

Lightly tapping versus punting are 2 different acts. The distance travelled is not what is penalized.

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.

All of this makes me wonder if a rule change would make this easier. Abolish delay warnings. Get rid of the T for delay after a warning. Take all of the plays that are delays: stop play and charge a TO to the team committing the delaying action. That means there is an actual consequence the first time and that there is a simple T for calling an excessive TO in the kinds of cases we are talking about here.

I didn't know delay of games were so rampant. I may have had a handful each year. I don't think this is as big a problem as you or some others on this board think it is.

Rampant? No. Annoying? Yes.

In watching my son's varsity games this year, I think I've seen three or four warnings given, and IMHO each was clearly warranted. I think 3 or 4 others could/should have been given, when players created delays as they were setting up a press. (And I have also heard silly parents yelling for warnings that were simply absurd. But that's a separate issue.)

The time it really matters, IMO, is in that end game scenario where it is a deliberate act in an attempt to force the refs to stop the clock. Existing rules aside, there are two philosophical approaches the game could take: (1) hey, they haven't been warned yet, so they are entitled to do that, or (2) we don't like that and don't want it to happen. My TO rule would address it simply, and would be under the second philosophy.

Why? Either assess a DOG, assess an unsporting T, or wait a few seconds before you do either if you want to "make a point." Either way the team will still retain the right to run the endline so yes, the clock may stop but its a technicality that is afforded the team. We don't have to try and plug every hole. Just officiated the damn game.

I actually wouldn't have a problem with that rules change. It would eliminate the possibility of abusing a loophole in the current rule. And since it doesn't happen that often, it shouldn't really bother anybody to adjudicate it the 3-4 times it may happen in one's season.