I agree with IAABO. According to earlier in this thread some other posters here do not. I simply look at whether the actions of the scoring team delayed the throw-in.

Iaabo ...
 

2019-20 Refresher Exam, or New Applicant Exam?

If the Refresher Exam, what number question, I can't find it on my Refresher Exam, looked twice?

"Just about the same"?

What's the exact wording (just curious)?

You speak as though IAABO has a reputation as a paragon of excellence when it comes to writing exam questions...

...which made me laugh out loud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tap ...
 

Maybe an unintentional "tap" isn't the same as an unintentional "hit with the ball on the head"?

Unintentional, or not, a "tap" sounds like a deliberate "act".

"Act" being part of the actual rule: 10-3 A player shall not: Delay the game by acts such as: Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.

Maybe the tap by the player was intentional (getting the ball out of his way), but the delay of game by the player wasn't intentional (he had no intent to delay the game), even though it ended up delaying player from readily making the throwin?

Nice thread. Makes me think.

I am not issuing a DoG warning against a team that is otherwise doing what they are supposed to do and not intentionally delaying the game. That seems very "plumber" like to me. Don't go picking boogers.

Whether this applies to the OP, you decide.
Around here we have two coaches, advocates of an immediate, crushing full-court press, who appear to have been teaching their players to merely touch the ball in some seemingly innocent manner to allow their players just a little more time to apply their pressing activities. It's really only a very scant delay that occurs, either briefly catching the ball then letting it drop, or barely tapping it, but it's enough to have an obvious negative effect upon the throw-in teams. Studying video on it reveals it as quite calculated and intentional. The crews that have caught on to the tactic and pregame it issue the 4-47 warning right away and that pretty much curbs the illegitimate practice the rest of the game. Those crews who are oblivious to the tool given in 4-47 or who don't look close enough to see and know what's going on, well . . .

Freddy makes a great point. From time to time I see this and put two and two together. If I see it once, I take a mental note because maybe it was a coincidence. Second time, if I’m feeling generous I might let the coach (or captain if I can’t get to the coach) know that I’m on to him/her/them. If I can somehow communicate this to my partners as well, I will.

After that, I officially warn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nip It In The Bud ...
 

"DON'T TOUCH THE BALL AFTER A BASKET".

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gU5iLiEySyk" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Doesn't matter if player crosses the boundary line or not, it's an IF

Who Let The Dogs Out ...
 

Correct, the thread is about delay of game and there is no delay of game warning (or technical foul) for such an act. An inbounder who holds the ball over the boundary and is fouled is just an "ordinary" intentional foul.

While you are correct, that is an awful rule/interpretation. The defensive player has a right to play a ball that is held across the line. They shouldn't be subject to an intentional foul for doing so.

As you know, the correct foul when the defender contacted the thrower, but did not break the boundary plane used to be a common foul. However, several years ago either Mary Struckhoff or one of her officiating colleagues screwed this up during a game and rather than admit that it was handled incorrectly, she had the NFHS change the rule!

I agree....kinda.

Defensive players do not get that right....just as inbounders get "extra" rights such as traveling and illegal dribbles rules not being in effect. Now, that last sentence is not where I agree with you, it is just a point about inbounders getting special treatment in more ways than one. Now, onto the part where there is some agreement. Take the case of an inbounder leaping entirely across the line and a defender merely brushing the arm of the inbounder before the inbounder releases the ball. This would be an IF and an explanation would be warranted for the entire gym as no one would understand/agree.