Delays in end game

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

It is about purpose ... If you have more than 5 seconds, say in the first quarter, and a defender kicks the ball across the gym after a basket, that act is not about delaying the game. That act is about being unsporting in every sense of the word. Go with T and tack on DOG at the same time.

Agree.

After reading posts in this thread, and other threads, and reading the relevant rules, and the relevant casebook plays, this is what I've come up with.

In various delay/prevent situations after a goal scored:

If the action (throw-in plane, interfering with the ball), with more than five seconds remaining in the game, is delaying the game, go with a delay of game warning (or technical foul after prior warning). If less than five seconds remaining in the game, ignore such actions.

If the action (at any point in the game, regardless of score, or time remaining) is preventing the ball from becoming live (one example, kicking the ball into the bleachers), go directly to a technical foul, not for delay of game, but for the unsporting act of preventing the ball from becoming live (no warning needed), and tack on a delay warning in the book.

The following acts have their own rule and their own penalty, regardless of the score and time remaining in the game: Knocking the ball out of A1’s hands (technical foul), and crossing the boundary line and fouling A1 (intentional personal foul), and also tack on a delay warning in the book for either.

How's that sound?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jay R

If NFHS joined the 21st century, they would stop the clock in the last minute. Problem solved.

The 2018-19 NFHS Rules Committee ruled against this proposal:

...Recognizes each successful field goal in the last 59.9 seconds of the fourth quarter or any extra period.
Rationale: The proposed rule change would allow for the clock to stop in the final minute of a contest after any made basket, matching what other levels of play follow domestically. We feel this change would be beneficial to the high school game for a handful of reasons, including:
* Removing situations of deliberate Delay-of-Game offenses by either team (7-5-1/10-2-1b) in an effort to conserve/consume time in end-of-game situations
* Removes the somewhat ambiguous issue of what an appropriate amount of time is to "gather" and resume play by a team in the lead in the final minute
* Removes the situation wherein coaches encourage Delay-of-Game offenses by athletes to conserve/consume time
* Removes the situation where coaches are calling a "sixth" timeout to take a technical in an attempt to extend the game
* Coaches are more able to utilize their timeouts throughout the contest versus feeling compelled to conserve them for end-of-game stoppages of the clock
Ultimately, we feel that this rule improves our end-of-game situations for officials, coaches and fans alike; is able to be officiated/enforced by high school officials; is easily understandable for scorers and timers; and creates a more balanced situation between offensive and defensive squads, regardless of score.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Jay R

If NFHS joined the 21st century, they would stop the clock in the last minute. Problem solved.

I would prefer this rule change over a shot clock, that's for sure.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Jay R

If NFHS joined the 21st century, they would stop the clock in the last minute. Problem solved.

Yes, that problem would be solved but then more problems would arise.

Just a slidin' down the slippery slope of rules. Weeeee!

[so cal lurker]

while I agree it is a better rule, I have some doubts about the ability of HS tables to execute.

(I’m also surprised that more HS teams don’t seem to understand the timing rules, and try to inbound when they don’t have to. My son’s team knows the rule and plays to it when they are ahead—to the outrage of teams that feel aggrieved by them not even trying to inbound the ball.)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The 2018-19 NFHS Rules Committee ruled against this proposal ...

Proposed by John Krogstrand, Pierre, South Dakota.

Any of you South Dakota guys know him? Wait ... I'm being told ... Are you sure, Krogstrand is the only person who lives there? Never mind.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Proposed by John Krogstrand, Pierre, South Dakota.

Wait....South Dakota has a shot clock, in open violation of NFHS rules. Yet they still have a rep on the rules committee? Fascinating....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

Wait....South Dakota has a shot clock, in open violation of NFHS rules. Yet they still have a rep on the rules committee? Fascinating....

I don't believe that he's on the Rules Committee. He's just an official who sent in his proposal, probably through his state interscholastic sports governing body.

I've sent in three new rule proposals (two accepted), and I'm not a Rules Committee member, nor do I play one on television.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I don't believe that he's on the Rules Committee. He's just an official who sent in his proposal, probably through his state interscholastic sports governing body.



I've sent in three new rule proposals (two accepted), and I'm not a Rules Committee member, nor do I play one on television.

Ahhh. Ok, that makes sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk