Delay of game question
 

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?

Since he failed to follow the case play ruling and sounded his whistle, the official needs to charge a team technical foul. That is the only way to prevent the scoring team from unfairly benefitting from the illegal action.

At first I was thinking inadvertent whistle, but that would only reward the offending team. Let's go with a Player Technical for delaying the game by "Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play" (10-4-5a).

Delay Or Prevent ...
 

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.

See 9.2.10A. Technical foul.

Pennsylvania Coach:

The Rule to which you allude is when Team A has yet to receive a Delay of Game Warning and A1 reaches through the Boundary Plane but does not make contact with either the Ball or B1.

That said, the Play you have described is, in my opinion, is an act which cannot be ignored even if Team A has yet to receive a Delay of Game Warning. A1's actions cannot be ignored and need to be charged and penalized.

MTD, Sr.

Bob:

Thanks for the CB Play.

MTD, Sr.

Can I guess that no T was issued and the officials just went to the POI?

You have guessed correctly.

Thanks Bob for the casebook play.

I can only hope this was at least on a below varsity level game (doesn't make it right, but less on the line I suppose).

Always Listen To bob ...
 

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)

I know what you are getting at, deecee, but I'm not sure that the sub-varsity coaches and players would agree.

I would think that one scenario could be that if a player reaches through the plane and does not touch the ball could cause his team to steal the throw in pass as he is being allowed this pressure while we wait for the clock to run out. I guess a late whistle here after the ball is stolen could wipe out this advantage, but now you've stopped the clock again so the defense still gains an advantage.

5th grade coaches won't agree either, but it's the reality of things. Expect a big drop off between Var-->JV officials and even bigger from JV-->Fresh.

A rule mess up sub varsity won't get addressed at all unless it's absolutely catastrophic. Even at the varsity level it's rare. Until you get to college kicking rules has little to no consequences.

Assignors have little recourse as qualified officials are in short supply. I can tell you since I stopped officiating 2 years ago I haven't missed the nonsense that came with it one bit. I do miss the game. But not enough to have to start that grind back up at this point in life.

It's not worth an argument--and I don't think we are really disagreeing--but I meant that to the coaches and players, there is always a lot on the line, if only because coaches and players want to see the rewards of their efforts. Sure, the skills and coaching might all be less than great, and sub-par officiating might not have career consequences, but it's still meaningful. That's why I go all out every game, regardless of the level.

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.

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.

Go Directly To Jail; Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200 ...
 

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.

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

Hoi Polloi ...
 

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).

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.

Well-stated points