Delay of game question

[deecee]

I didn't think we were disagreeing at all. It's usually a sentiment I see here like "do it for the kids" that's just not realistic. Some guys, like you, may take a lot of pride in this. Most, unfortunately, don't.

[Zoochy]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

We had a situation recently in my chapter that I'd like some opinions on. A is trailing by 5 points. A1 makes a layup, cutting the margin to 3 points, with 4-point-something on the clock, still running. A1 grabs the ball out of the net and throws it back toward his own bench. I am aware of the specific rule/case directing the officials to ignore this delay and allow time to expire. However, at least one of the officials on this game was not aware, and blew the whistle to stop play. Now what?

I don't think this is CB 9.2.10A. I believe Rule 10-4-5a is a better application.
Player Technical
ART. 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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

I don't think this is CB 9.2.10A. I believe Rule 10-4-5a is a better application.
Player Technical
ART. 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.

In this specific case, I also prefer the "preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play" technical foul.

I'm not a big fan a "delay of game" technical foul with no previous "delay" warning (with one very specific exception, knocking the ball out of inbounder's hands).

However 9.2.10 SITUATION A does give us the "directly to technical" option: 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.

I'm researching "end of game delay/prevent" situations for an article I'm writing, and I'm stumbling over these two choices, and exactly which one to use, and when to use them.

I thought I had it all figured out, but 9.2.10 SITUATION A "However" now complicates matters.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

....

I thought I had it all figured out, but 9.2.10 SITUATION A "However" now complicates matters.

That case play has been around for a while, hasn't it?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

That case play has been around for a while, hasn't it?

It certainly has, but I've never had an opportunity to use either 10-4-5-A or 9.2.10 SITUATION A in a real end of game situation and now I've been asked to write an article regarding such.

Both probably match the situation, but is one preferred? I really don't like using the "delay" technical (with one very specific exception, knocking the ball out of inbounder's hands) unless there's been a delay warning but that's just my own individual, "unwashed", hoi polloi opinion, and may not be the same as NFHS (or IAABO).

[so cal lurker]

Rule schemes rarely have solutions for every referee mistake. The proper thing was to not blow the whistle and let the game end. Once the mistake of blowing the whistle is made, you're left with two choices. (1) Just give the DOG warning and keep going or (2) give a T (under either not-precisely-accurate-as-written theory). The latter is probably the most consistent with restoring the balance messed up by the whistle that should not have been blown.

[Kansas Ref]

Well-stated points