Delay Warnings
 

Why do some officials report a number to the table for a warning for delay? The warning is for the entire team, not the player who was responsible for the team receiving it. I've always just said "White, warning for delay" and told the coach what caused the warning if needed. Is there any reason I should be giving the number to the table?

Also, in NCAA-M, if a flagrant 1 foul is assessed to a defender for making contact with a thrower-in, does that count as the team's warning for player delay, as well? My gut was yes but I can't find anything in the books so I'm starting to think making contact with the thrower is separate from other throw-in plane rules.

I know in NFHS it would count as the team's warning if we had an intentional/technical foul for contacting the thrower/ball.

In regards to a warning after a F1 for contacting a thrower-in, isn't the rule in the NFHS a warning for reaching across the boundary line? There is no such restriction in the NCAA-M's rule set.

Rule 9-4.3

The opponents of the thrower-in shall not have any part of their person beyond the vertical inside plane of any boundary line before the ball has crossed that boundary line. Repeated infractions shall result in a Class B technical foul.

Am I missing something?

But that restriction is not part of the warnings. Maybe it's an oversight by those who write the rules. Wouldn't be the first time.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I think it is an oversight. The fact that a repeated infraction leads to a technical suggests that their must be some recording of the first infraction. Otherwise, how do you document the repeated element of it? If it isn't recorded, how can you get to the T, by rule?

But I do not think "repeated" means "a second time" as in the other delay warnings.

That's JMO -- I don't work NCAAM ball.

With flopping added as one of the player delays, If it is an oversight they need to send out a correction

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

With the rule as written, I'm going to interpret "repeatedly" as being on the same throw-in.

In this case play there is no mention of a warning:

"A.R. 206. A1 is inbounding the ball along his endline. A1 fakes a pass to A2, which draws B2 airborne in an attempt to intercept the ball. B2 lands out of bounds. A1 releases the ball with a pass to A2, who is on the playing court; 1. B2 leaves the floor from out of bounds, breaks the boundary-line plane and while airborne, touches the pass to A2 after it crosses the boundaryline plane; or 2. B2, while out of bounds, touches the pass as it is released by A1 but before it crosses the boundary-line plane. RULING 1 and 2: B2 has committed an out-of-bounds violation because B2 was last in contact with the floor when he was out of bounds and then contacted the ball before B2 touches the floor inbounds. (Rule 9-4.2.b, 4-23 and 9-4.1) 2: B2 touched the ball before it crossed the vertical inside plane of the boundary line. This is not a technical foul because the ball was being passed to a player on the playing court and not to a teammate who was out of bounds such as after a successful goal. (Rule 9-4.3, 4-23 and 4-10.1)"

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

In fact, B2 only gets penalized for touching the ball while having OOB status in these plays. With that I'm convinced that breaking the boundary plane is not one of the player delay warnings.

Not necessarily. Under NFHS rules, the warning would only be issued if the defender actually broke the boundary plane while fouling the thrower or contacting the ball while it is still in the thrower’s hands. It is possible for the thrower to extend his arms through the boundary plane and over the inbounds area of the court prior to releasing the throw-in pass. A foul by the defender under such circumstances would result in an intentional personal foul, but not also a team warning for delay.

There was a case book play or interp a few seasons ago detailing this.

Yes, there was. And it an absolutely awful interpretation, second only to the backcourt interpretation that has now been corrected by an "exception" that essentially says the rule says what the rule has always said.

The interpretation regarding the throwin says that contacting the thrower is an intentional foul. It doesn't give the official room to judge the contact any more than whether it occurred or not.

I believe it is fundamentally flawed to call an intentional foul on a defender who is in a legal position and can legally contact the ball but merely makes contact with the thrower while attempting to do so.

The interpretation "should" be that it is an intentional only if you contact the thrower across the line and contact on the inbounds side of the line should be judge like any other type of foul.

Why? Because there is no reason to ever make contact with the thrower across the line and any such contact is fully unnecessary and should be intentional while contact inbounds should be expected and should be treated as nothing extraordinary.

I went all the way back to 2017-18, and you're right. Thought maybe it was an oversight last year when they revised the delays. I never realized that the defender crossing the throw-in plane is not one of the player delay warnings.

"Failing to provide sufficient space along the out of bounds line for a
throw-in after being warned by an official per Rule 7-6.8.e" is one of the player delays, but that has nothing to do with the throw-in plane rule.

I do think the way the current rule as written leaves something to be desired, but at least my original question has been answered.

For The Good Of The Cause (High School) ...
 

NFHS RULE 4 SECTION 47 WARNING FOR DELAY
A warning to a team for delay is an administrative procedure by an official which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the head coach:
ART. 1 For throw-in plane violations, as in 9-2-10, 10-2-1c.
ART. 2 For huddle by either team and contact with the free thrower, as in 10-2-1d.
ART. 3 For interfering with the ball following a goal as in 10-2-1e.
ART. 4 For failure to have the court ready for play following any timeout as in 10-2-1f.

I'd email Art Hyland about this, to have him address the issue with either a bulletin for this season, or an actual rules change for next season.

I have a clear understanding what constitutes a player delay.

What could probably use in interpretation or case play is the definition of repeated in 9-4-3. But I don't feel compelled to write Art Hyland about that.

I have written him before about rules and I also had a couple back and forths wih John Adams about rules when he was the national coordinator. I'm aware of the availability of Art Hyland and JD Collins for interpretations.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk