You're giving a teenager an awful lot of credit.

We're also giving high school timekeepers a lot of credit for the "just let time expire" crowd. If that exact play happens without a whistle, 90 percent of timers are stopping the clock anyway, and then you've got another wrinkle to the s***show.

In theory, of course I agree with all this, but in practice, this looks well-handled by this crew.

Do Not Pass Go, Go Directly To Jail ...
 

Knocking a loose ball away is interfering with the ball.

Knocking a ball out of the thrower's hands is interfering with the thrower.

B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1's hands ... 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.

In the interpretation, no warning is required (that would benefit the defense). Go directly to a technical foul.

Note: The interpretation is not the same situation as the original post.

You left an apostrophe "s" and the word "effort" out of that second sentence.

You can't rewrite a sentence and then say "hey look, the rule is different"

Interfering with the ball is also interfering with the "thrower's effort".

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Difference ...
 

Agree in practice, but the interpretation (not the original post) differentiates between simply knocking a loose ball away and knocking the ball from the thrower's grasp.

The first (simply knocking a loose ball away) may be ignored if there is under five seconds remaining, and with over five seconds remaining may (unless it's egregious) require a warning before a technical foul.

The second (knocking the ball from the thrower's grasp) leads to an immediate technical foul even if there wasn't a previous warning.

And (knocking the ball from the thrower's grasp) the technical foul is probably charged even if there is less than five seconds remaining (in theory if not in practice):

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)

I don't see your point.

Nevada posted the relevant case play. The following verbiage from that case play's comment covers multiple acts that COULD occur to invoke the case play: "if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in"

Trying to narrowly construe it to fit only one specific act is your mistake and the cause of your confusion.

Ralph Kramden ...
 

I am not confused about this specific situation (knocking the ball from the thrower's grasp). Easy. Technical foul. No warning. First period. Last period. Close game. Blowout game. Ten seconds left. Four seconds left.

My frustration (and possible confusion) regarding these "delay/interfere" situations is trying to figure out when to go directly to a technical foul and when to warn (if not already warned), knowing not to only warn if less than five seconds left.

Regarding interfering with the ball after a goal (only touching it, tapping it a very short distance away, knocking it a slightly longer distance away, tossing it a longer distance away, throwing it a very long distance, kicking it to the moon, etc.).

Sometimes we're expected to ignore.

Sometimes we warn (if not already warned).

Sometimes we go directly to a technical foul with no warning.

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.w...=0&w=300&h=300

I'm still not seeing your point. If it's 5 or less seconds there are multiple acts that we either ignore or go straight to a T, but we do not warn for them.

Egregious ???
 

Agree 100%.

How about interfering with the ball after a goal (only touching it, tapping it a very short distance away, knocking it a slightly longer distance away, tossing it a longer distance away, throwing it a very long distance, kicking it to the moon, etc.) at any point in the first 31:55 of the game?

Do we always warn (if not already warned)?

Are there situations where we go directly to a technical foul with no warning.

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.

Doesn't any interference with the ball after a goal (tapping it a very short distance away, knocking it a slightly longer distance away, tossing it a longer distance away, throwing it a very long distance, kicking it to the moon, etc.) "interfere with the thrower’s efforts to make a throw-in"?

In the past, some Forum members have described some of these situations as egregious, but I don't see this term (or a similar term) described (or even used) anywhere in the NFHS rulebook, or casebook?

Note: Keeping in mind that 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.

My 2 cents: The act in the OP is unsporting enough to justify a T on those grounds, no need for a DOG procedure. I would also agree with the crew letting the kid from the inbounding (winning) team go get the ball or wait for the ball to make its way back to him. At that point, the game is probably over.

If the kid does this same thing earlier in the game, I'm probably going to go to a T for an unsporting act, not a DOG warning.

Since I don't know what you're still confused about, I will bow out now. I had 2 DOG warnings this year for interfering with the ball after a made basket. They were both pretty cut-and-dry. Only thing unusual about those 2 plays was that they were committed by the same player in two different games. One time he slapped the ball really hard towards the wall, the other time he hit the ball so it went away from the thrower-in.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Choices ...
 

I guess it depends on the level of HS ball. My son played in one of the top leagues in Southern California, so maybe I have a biased sample, but . . . .

Three close games ended with his team deliberately not inbounding the ball to let time expire. No timekeeper got confused.

In two (maybe three) games players deliberately took the "free" DOG warning in the final minute (not final seconds) to stop the clock.

In the game being discussed, the team behind was clearly aware that a DOG was a way to stop the clock--indeed, it was a smart play to try to get a DOG, and even resulting in a T was still a smart play.

Of course not.

You will see neither that term nor hundreds of other adjectives used to describe an action that involves judgement/discretion. You have your own idea of what "tapping a player lightly with a finger" and "throwing multiple punches" means. You also are aware of the thousands of degrees of contact between the two. Each form of contact garners your attention and you apply your own judgement/discretion on how to handle each. Interfering with the ball is the same situation. A player gently touching the ball after it passes through the net is different than a player taking the ball and running out of the building with it. Use your judgement to adjudicate just like any other play.

I can think of all kinds of cases where players interfere with the ball and in some, there would be no-call, in some there would be a T, and in some there would be an ejection.

This play must be a new type of epidemic in ANY game that actually counts....The correct thing to do (and this is the ONLY correct thing) is ignore or T. But even if you get it wrong at the HS level there won't be any repercussions. I've seen worse and the officials get but a slap on the wrist.

Like a huge rivalry game against 2 good teams. Visitors down by 5, hit a 3 with about 3 seconds to go. For some reason the home team rushed the inbounds and shot a "3" at their opponents basket. Horn sounds while ball is in air, ball goes through basket. Crew count the "3" and Visitors "win" by 1.

The 3 guys on that crew did state tourney games that year. So....my faith in "adjudicating" the rules correctly at the HS level dropped. At college it actually matters, which I like.