DOG under 5 seconds left
 

What is the correct ruling on this play? Have you seen this called?

This is from a State Playoff Game in California:

Mayfair’s Michael Ofoegbu made a layup with 4.6 seconds left, drawing Mayfair within 70-69. Mayfair was out of timeouts, so Chino Hills didn’t need to inbound the ball which would have run out the clock.

Mayfair senior Chris Adimora intentionally grabbed and threw the ball at the basket, resulting in a delay of game technical foul. Will Pluma made two free throws and Chino Hills inbounded the ball at halfcourt. It resulted in a steal and Christopher was free for 3-point attempt that hit the back rim and bounced away as time expired.

We did that a couple of years ago, and these seniors were sophomores then,” Mayfair coach Tony Davis said. “But I don’t think the refs called it right.”

Davis said two years ago, it was called as a delay of game warning, stopping the clock, but without a technical foul. It allowed Mayfair to foul the other team and have a final chance.

The T is the correct call.

With under 5, you ignore it if it is a typical delay. But, if it is an egregious act, the only just result is a T. Otherwise, the offending team gets a benefit not intended by rule...time. The throwing team has 5 seconds to throw. Nothing says they actually have to throw until 5. If the other team wants to stop the clock, they call timeout (if they have any).

Look at the comment to this ruling.



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; 10-2-1b, c; 10-4-10)

Could very well be that the officials got it right two years ago, too, assuming in that instance there were more than five seconds on the clock. Bottom line is that this coach either hasn’t read the case book, or doesn’t want you to know what’s in it. The ruling is crystal clear.

I wouldn’t mind the NFHS adopting the collegiate last-minute rule to avoid this stuff. However, that’s about as high a priority for me as a universal shot clock, meaning not high at all considering these types of situations are so rare.

Hey, coaches: manage your timeouts better!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seen it. Called it (or, more accurately, no-called it).

I don't recall if this was addressed definitively in earlier threads about DOG: if a player's "tactic . . . interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in" and we issue a T, is it on the player who interfered or a team T?

From the case play: RULING: B1 is charged with a technical foul

Player Technical Foul ...
 

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.

Starts at 12:10.

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

Interference ...
 

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.

Delay ...
 

Nice video sj. Thanks.

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.

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.

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.