Delay of Game Warning
 

After the ball comes through the net following A-1’s successful try, A-2 unintentionally taps the ball preventing Team B from readily making a throw-in.
Is this a DOG?
Which BOLD word is more important?

If it is unintentional, it is nothing regardless of the effect.

If it doesn't impact B's ability to make a throw-in, it is nothing.

Only if A intentionally contacts the ball and that contact affects B's ability to make a throw-in does it become a DOG.

Ahh....
but my question does say "preventing Team B from readily making a throw-in".

Where in the rules does it say that the interference with the ball must be intentional?

Delay of Game Warning
 

It doesn’t. However, we’d be lying to ourselves if we claimed this wasn’t a widely accepted interpretation.

No way I’m ever issuing a warning here if it’s unintentional. However, if the ball gets away so that it cannot be retrieved quickly, I’ll stop the clock per whatever rule/case dictates that (cue BillyMac).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How can one interfere with the ball without intent?

The ball could drop through the net and strike a member of the scoring team in the foot or knee causing it to roll away.

Stopping the clock is only one of the two issues. The other is preventing the opponent from quickly inbounding the ball and going on the attack. You whistling for the clock to stop doesn’t restore the ability to attack quickly before the defense sets up.

And that is not interfering with the ball. The ball hit a player who had every right to stand wherever he/she liked on the court.

I answered that...doesn't matter. Interference is an action taken by team A. Did A do anything? No.

Players will always be around and under the basket on made shots. It would be wholly unreasonable to expect all team A players to instantly vacate the area as the ball dropped through the net.

If you want to be the only official on the planet that will call it (while being incorrect) be my guest.

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

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.

10-1-5: A team shall not: Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes
the following and similar acts: Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay.

The following acts have their own rule and their own penalty, regardless of the score and time remaining in the game: Crossing the boundary line and knocking the ball out of the inbounder's hands (technical foul), and crossing the boundary line and fouling the inbounder (intentional personal foul), and also tack on a delay warning in the book for either.

10.1.5 SITUATION D: Immediately following a goal by A1, A3 slaps the ball
away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in. RULING: The official
shall sound his/her whistle and go to the table to have the scorer record a team
warning for delay. The warning shall then be reported to the head coach of Team A.
Any subsequent delay by Team A shall result in a team technical foul charged
to Team A. (4-47-3)

2000-01 NFHS Interpretations
SITUATION 15: Immediately following a goal in the first quarter by Al, A3 slaps the ball away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in. In the second quarter, A2 reaches through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary plane. RULING: The official shall sound his/her whistle and go to the table to have the scorer record a team warning for the specific delay after it has occurred. The specific warning is then reported to the head coach of Team A. Any subsequent delay for interfering with the ball following a basket or throw-in plane violation by Team A shall result in a technical foul charged to Team A. COMMENT: The three warning situations listed in Rule 4-46 are treated separately. (4-46; 9-2-11; lO-1-5c,d)

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; 10-1-5b, c; 10-3-10)

10.4.10 SITUATION A: After a field goal, A1 has the ball out of bounds for a throw-in. Thrower A1 holds the ball: (a) B2 crosses the boundary line and fouls A1; or (b) B2 reaches through the out-of-bounds plane and touches the ball while in the hands of A1. RULING: It is an intentional personal foul in (a), and a technical foul in (b). In (a), such a contact foul with the thrower during a throw-in shall be considered intentional, or if it is violent, it should be ruled flagrant. COMMENT: Either act is a foul and it should be ruled as such whenever it occurs during a game without regard to time or score or whether the team had or had not been warned for a delay-of-game situation. If the player making the throw-in (A1) reaches through the out-of-bounds plane into the court and B1 then slaps the ball from the hand of A1, no violation has occurred. B1 has merely slapped a live ball from the hands of A1. (4-19-3, 4; 9-2-10 Penalty 3, 4)

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)

History: 1985 NCAA Final, Villanova beats Patrick Ewing and Georgetown. "When the scoring team touches the ball after it goes through the basket, officials should end the practice immediately. For those old enough to remember the NCAA men’s final in 1985, the reason is clear. During the game, Georgetown players had been tapping the ball gently toward the Villanova thrower-in after a score. A friendly gesture? Think again. That speeded up play a bit, which was to Georgetown’s liking. However, the real consequence of allowing that practice happened at the end of the game. With five seconds left, the Hoyas scored to cut their deficit to two points. They had no timeouts left, and a Georgetown player slapped the ball away from Villanova. The official blew the whistle to stop the clock. (That was before the rules required the game clock to be stopped after scores in the last minute.) The officials warned Georgetown to leave the ball alone, but that forced Villanova to make a hotly contested throw-in with five seconds left rather than just let the clock run out. It managed the throw-in. But in an interview much later, one of the officials admitted they had been very lucky. By permitting Georgetown to “help” Villanova get the ball after a made basket, it set the stage for the slap of the ball at the end of the game and prompted the reflex whistle when it occurred. The official vowed never again to let even a friendly touch occur in any game he officiates. That is the right plan for all of us. Get the warning done early to prevent any temptations at a critical time and the need for a technical foul."

I'm glad this was posted as I had two DoG situations tonight....

1. BJV game. Under 10 seconds left in the half. W5 makes a shot, W20 grabs the ball as it goes through the basket (Four seconds were on the clock as he caught it) and stands there with it in his hands. When I realize Red isn't going to be able to throw it in, I kill the clock and issue a DoG warning on white. When I stopped the clock, there were 2.1 seconds left. Red's coach wanted us to put time back on, but seeing as it was not a timing issue, I did not put any time on. I've never had that one before in 13 years. Would anyone do it differently?

2. On the topic closer to the OP above. BV game following the JV game. W10 ends up the the ball in his hands on a made basket immediately as it falls through the basket. He drops it right where it was to avoid a DoG. His teammate, W33, is standing nearby and the ball hits the back of his foot as it is bouncing around. It rolls away out of bounds so Red has to chase it. Red's coach wanted a warning, but seeing as it was unintentional I didn't warn White.

Perfectly handled in both cases.

IAABO Test
 

My original post was directly from the 2019-2020 test. I am surprised BillyMac did not comment on the OP
This post is just about the same. On the topic closer to the OP above. BV game following the JV game. W10 ends up the the ball in his hands on a made basket immediately as it falls through the basket. He drops it right where it was to avoid a DoG. His teammate, W33, is standing nearby and the ball hits the back of his foot as it is bouncing around. It rolls away out of bounds so Red has to chase it. Red's coach wanted a warning, but seeing as it was unintentional I didn't warn White..
Per the IAABO answer sheet. This is a Delay of Game warning. I assume because the ball IS NOT readily available for the RED team, makes it a DOG warning. Intentional or Unintentional are not factors

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.