Delays in end game
 

HS. White is winning, black scrambling to catch up. With about thirty seconds left (and no time outs) black scores and a black player grabs the ball and holds it.

What’s the best way to handle? In the game I was watching, the ref blew the whistle (I think gave a DOG, but not sure—I was in the stands) and let Black sub and put in their defenders to press. Is that the best path, or would it be better for the ref to just let the clock keep running and tell the player to drop the ball? Blowing the whistle gave black 6-7 extra seconds, the ability to set their press, and the ability to sub.

(Same thing happened a second time, when black scored to come within 3 with 7 seconds left—this time the ref did nothing, and the game ended, followed by a black player flinging his mouth piece while glaring at the ref.)

Delay Of Game ...
 

Thirty seconds left? Delay of game warning (or technical foul if previously warned for any delay of game).

That's what I would do, however 9.2.10 SITUATION A (below) suggests an alternative harsher penalty.

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)

B1 reaching through the boundary plane and knocking the ball out of A1’s hands would always be a technical foul, regardless of the score, and time remaining.

Is that the same as B1 simply holding the ball?

I look forward to further discussion of 9.2.10 SITUATION A and hope to learn something.

One thing I'm sure of, no rule basis not to allow eligible substitutes (dead ball, clock stopped), so let them in.

Five seconds left? Let the clock run.

That's what I would do, however 10.4.10 SITUATION A and 10.4.10 SITUATION B suggests not to ignore certain delaying acts (knocks the ball out of A1’s hands, crosses the boundary line and fouls A1, reaches through the out-of-bounds plane and touches the ball while in the hands of A1), even if there's less than five seconds left, but these would always be a foul, regardless of the score, and time remaining.

Is that the same as B1 simply holding the ball? I don't believe so.

10.4.10 SITUATION A: After a field goal, A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in. Thrower A1 holds the ball: (a) B2 crosses the boundary line and fouls A1; or (b) B2 reaches through the out-of-bounds plane and touches the ball while in the hands of A1. RULING: It is an intentional personal foul in (a), and a technical foul in (b). In (a), such a contact foul with the thrower during a throw-in shall be considered intentional, or if it is violent, it should be ruled flagrant. COMMENT: Either act is a foul and it should be ruled as such whenever it occurs during a game without regard to time or score or whether the team had or had not been warned for a delay-of-game situation. If the player making the throw-in (A1) reaches through the out-of-bounds plane into the court and B1 then slaps the ball from the hand of A1, no violation has occurred. B1 has merely slapped a live ball from the hands of A1. (4-19-3, 4; 9-2-10 Penalty 3, 4)

10.4.10 SITUATION B: After a field goal, the score is A-55, B-54. A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in with two seconds remaining in the game. A1 throws the ball toward A2 who also is out of bounds along the end line. B2 reaches across the end line and grabs or slaps the ball while it is in flight. Time expires close to the moment the official indicates the infraction. RULING: A technical foul is charged against B2. The remaining time or whether Team B had been previously warned for a delay-of-game situation is not a factor. No free throws are awarded as the winner of the game has been determined. (9-2-10 Penalty 3, 4)

Billy I love your work but you have over complicated this one.

Simple:

>5s, call the DOG. They can only use this tactic once because subsequent delays are Team Ts. Bully for them for thinking of it.

<5s, ignore, unless as mentioned it interferes with the TI team trying to make a TI.

In the OP situation there were 7s left, so a Team T for delay should have been called.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do Not Pass Go ...
 

I'm confused. Seven is more than five. For more than five you say call the delay of game warning (or technical foul), but for seven you say go directly to the technical foul.

That's my question.

It appears that the NFHS wants us to go directly to the foul for knocking the ball out of A1’s hands, crossing the boundary line and fouling A1, and reaching through the out-of-bounds plane and touching the ball while in the hands of A1 (as we always would regardless of the time remaining and score), but what about other types of delays (like B1 holding the ball) where we would "normally" give a warning (or a technical foul) for not-end-of-the-game situations?

If we would "normally" give a warning (or a technical foul) for not-end-of-the -game situations (like B1 holding the ball), would we skip the warning and go directly to a technical foul for the same situations (like B1 holding the ball) but at the end-of-the-game (greater then five seconds)?

With six minutes to go in the second period a team could tap the ball away and delay to set up their press. Does that mean that we should go directly to a technical foul for delay (even though no previous warning had been issued) because to only warn in this situation would "allow the team to benefit (set up their press) from the tactic ... if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning"?

Don’t both delays (throw-in plane violation; interfering with the ball following a goal violation) always interfere with the thrower’s efforts to make a throw-in?

I know when to go directly to a foul (knocking the ball out of A1’s hands, crossing the boundary line and fouling A1, and reaching through the out-of-bounds plane and touching the ball while in the hands of A1), regardless of the time remaining and score.

I'm not sure when to only warn (or technical foul) for a throw-in plane violation, or interfering with the ball following a goal violation, in an end-of-the-game situation versus going directly to a technical foul for the same act.

I'm guessing that the NFHS wants us to ignore throw-in plane violations, or interfering with the ball following a goal violations with less than five seconds left, but wants us to go directly to a foul for knocking the ball out of A1’s hands, crossing the boundary line and fouling A1, and reaching through the out-of-bounds plane and touching the ball while in the hands of A1, even with less than five seconds left.

That’s because I knew the same team had already been warned.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Algebra On The Forum ...
 

Got it, but I'm still not 100% sure when to call a delay (or technical foul), or when to go directly to a technical foul.

I've got many situations covered, but still have questions on some situations (throw-in plane, interfering with the ball).

He covered it already.

> 5 seconds it's a DOG (warning or T depending on the number).
< 5 you ignore or go straight to the T if warranted.

No more complicated than that.

The T should have been called at the 7 second mark. IF the kid then still threw his mouthpiece then a second, and IMO flagrant, should be issued for flinging the mouthpiece AND staring me down.

Skip The Warning ...
 

I'm more concerned with the delay at thirty seconds, or if the first delay is later.

Casebook implies that in some cases we may skip the delay warning and go directly to a technical foul (with no warning).

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)

2000-2001 Basketball Rules Interpretations: SITUATION 15: Immediately following a goal in the first quarter by A1, 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.

Interesting that the situations occur in the first half. Would the ruling be the same with thirty, or twenty, or ten seconds left in the game?

Isn't there a caseplay or interpretation where the end-of-game defender throws the ball toward the bleachers (à la Patrick Ewing)?

I can't find it.

Yes the penalty is the SAME. CC already outlined what the penalty is and the ONLY time that is a possible factor 5 SECONDS remaining in the game.

All After-Goal-Delay Circumstances ...
 

So under all after-goal-delay circumstances, with more than five seconds left in the game, we always warn for delay (or technical foul) and never go directly to a technical foul (unless knocking the ball out of A1’s hands, crossing the boundary line and fouling A1 (not technical, intentional personal), and reaching through the out-of-bounds plane and touching the ball while in the hands of A1), even if the defender tosses the ball six rows up into the bleachers?

If that's the case, I'm cool to it. I just wanted to double check.

Again, isn't there a caseplay or interpretation where the end-of-game defender throws the ball toward the bleachers (à la Patrick Ewing)?

The answer may be "No".

If less than 5 seconds and the player throws the ball in the stands ignore...unless the opposing team was going to make an attempt at inbounds...then T. If more than 5 seconds...DOG (warning or T depending on if first or second violation).

Although at the HS level (and possibly college) a case can be made that this act is unsporting on the specific player and would not follow the DOG process.

Thread ...
 

Wasn't a caseplay or interpretation, it was a thread:

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1012227

Sounds like a plan. Not a delay situation, but rather, an unsporting act.

It is about purpose. If the defense is delaying in order to solely benefit themselves, then adjudicate to reward the offense. If the defense is delaying in order to solely disallow the offense from benefiting, then adjudicate to penalize the defense. Time becomes mostly irrelevant.

Wow, that was tough to interpret. My apologies.

The whole 5 second thing is about the game being done so why bother doing anything? Game has been decided, let's go home.

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.;)

I'm not blowing my whistle for delay until the opposing team tries to get the ball for its throw-in. I'll allow about 4-5 seconds for that.

There is nothing telling us we have to blow our whistle immediately when the defense attempts to delay in this manner.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

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

Closure ...
 

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?

The Nays Have It ...
 

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.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cart...knn364_low.jpg

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

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

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

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

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.)

Found It ...
 

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.

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

Nor Do I Play One On Television ...
 

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