DOG under 5 seconds left

[BayStateRef]

I would ignore the deliberate effort to stop the clock and let time expire.

The case book makes it clear this is the correct thing to do:
interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock.

A T should be called "if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in."

The thrower (and his team) did not want to make a throw in. They wanted the clock to run out.

By calling the T, the defense (with no time outs remaining) benefits greatly. As happened here, even with the free throws being made, it was able to steal the ball and attempt a 3-point shot.

Let the defense grab the ball. Just don't blow the whistle. Let time expire.

[sj]

Starts at 12:10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxK_B0F28EM

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by sj

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxK_B0F28EM

Nice video sj. Thanks.

[gamefaceref]

Looks like the clock ran off a half second between the whistle and stoppage....could have put back about .6 to address they delay. Blue throwing (punching) the ball to the sideline needs to be addressed.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by sj

Starts at 12:10.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxK_B0F28EM

It looks like the initial "interference" (aka "preventing the ball from becoming live") took place with more like 7 seconds on the clock. By the time he actually threw the ball into the crowd, the whistle sounded, and the clock stopped, it may have been less than 5 on the clock.

Probably still best to just let the clock run out, but once the whistle is blown you have to go with the T.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I would ignore the deliberate effort to stop the clock and let time expire. The case book makes it clear this is the correct thing to do: interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. A T should be called "if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in." The thrower (and his team) did not want to make a throw in. They wanted the clock to run out. By calling the T, the defense (with no time outs remaining) benefits greatly. As happened here, even with the free throws being made, it was able to steal the ball and attempt a 3-point shot. Let the defense grab the ball. Just don't blow the whistle. Let time expire.

I agree with you in practice, but the interpretation says otherwise. There is a difference between interfering with ball and interfering with the thrower.

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

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I agree with you in practice, but the interpretation says otherwise. There is a difference between interfering with ball and interfering with the thrower.

What more could a player do to interfere with the ball than punch it into the stands? That's where the casebook says we can ignore the action if the only purpose is to stop the clock.

As others correctly point out, it does appear there were more than 5 seconds on the clock, but I don't start a count until the ball is at the player's disposal. Give him a second or two to gather the ball and 5 seconds to release it (high and far) -- and the game is over before the ball comes down from the rafters.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

… Give him a second or two to gather the ball and 5 seconds to release it (high and far) -- and the game is over before the ball comes down from the rafters.

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.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by ODog

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

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I agree with you in practice, but the interpretation says otherwise. There is a difference between interfering with ball and interfering with the thrower.

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

What more could a player do to interfere with the ball than punch it into the stands? That's where the casebook says we can ignore the action if the only purpose is to stop the clock.

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

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

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)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.