Exam Question Thoughts

[griblets]

FL exam has the following question and there is controversy regarding the answer. I believe the correct answer is D per 9.2.10 Sit. A Comment. Apparently, the test is scored with B as the correct answer. I'm unconvinced. Am I wrong? As a local association rules interpreter, I seek interpretations to help explain to my local association.


Question:
Team A has the ball trailing 65-61 and no timeouts remaining. A1 makes a layup to cut the lead to 65-63 with :04 remaining on the clock. As the ball is falling to the floor after passing through the net, A1 knowing her team has no more timeouts, swats the ball into the bleachers. How would we administer this play?


Possible Answers:

B. This is an unsporting technical on A1. Team B will have two free throws taken by any legal player of their choosing followed by a throw-in at mid-court opposite the score table. There is no need for a delay of game warning in this play.

D. In situations with the clock running and :05 or less remaining in the game, interfering with the ball should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. The clock should be allowed to expire and the game ends with Team B winning 65-63.

[Valley Man]

Answer is B

The batting of the ball into the stands interferes with Team B's "ability" to throw the ball in. Technical Foul

Answer D is for intentionally breaking the plane or a less obvious tapping the ball away. Ignore the act as it is an attempt to stop the clock.

Re-read the case play and the entire comment. I believe you didn't finish reading all of it.

[SC Official]

I think you have to give a T here but if I'm making the call I am going to be very slow about blowing my whistle. And we aren't adjusting the clock if the timer is slow reacting.

[griblets]

Thank you for your feedback. I hear you, and some others are saying the same thing. I have read it through and I interpret it differently. Allow me to explain.

I think we have to judge whether or not team B is making an effort to throw-in.

If no team B player is making an effort to throw-in, A's interfering with the ball should be ignored since its only purpose is to stop the clock.

If a team B player is making an effort to throw-in, meaning a B player has the ball at his disposal, A's interference with the ball would be a technical foul.

I'll also reference the Intent and Purpose of the Rules on Page 8 just prior to Rule 1.

"...it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule."

If we penalize with a technical foul, the clock stops. Why should team A be rewarded for an unsporting act to purposefully stop the clock and have a chance to win a game that would otherwise be over as I believe is the intent of the Comment in 9.2.10 Sit. A?

I don't mean to be combative. If I'm wrong, I need to be convinced so that I can take the information to our association. I'm not convinced, yet.

[BillyMac]

9.2.10 SITUATION A: 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)

[LRZ]

I think the distinction between B and D is this: if the violation is egregious enough, you have to recognize and penalize it with a technical, even though it gives the offending team what it wants--a stopped clock. I guess NFHS felt that awarding two FTs and the ball outweighed the stopped clock benefit.

This is one of those NFHS hair-splittings that don't make sense to me: how "unsporting" (or, to paraphrase Valley Man, how more "obvious tapping the ball away") does conduct have to be to stop the clock and penalize? Where is the line between conduct that must be penalized, with the clock stopping, and conduct that must be ignored?

In any event, if I have to penalize, I'm likely to employ SC Official's slow whistle and, if the timer is also slow in stopping the clock, I'm not putting time back on the clock.

[Camron Rust]

The difference is delay vs prevent.

In a delay, the ball is still on the court or along the court in the vicinity of the throwin area where the throwing team could get it with a momentary delay.

In a prevent, the ball is in the stands (or the opposite end of the court) such that the other team would have to take a lot of extra time in order to get the ball....and we really don't want players going into the stands.

[griblets]

Thanks to each of you who has responded for helping me to see this differently.

[LRZ]

How momentary is momentary? How delayed is delay versus prevent?

I don't see the distinction being clear enough to provide an objective standard. YMMV.

[BillyMac]

... Or Preventing The Ball From Becoming Live After A Successful Goal

Originally Posted by LRZ

This is one of those NFHS hair-splittings that don't make sense to me: how "unsporting" does conduct have to be to stop the clock and penalize? Where is the line between conduct that must be penalized, with the clock stopping, and conduct that must be ignored?

Originally Posted by LRZ

How momentary is momentary? How delayed is delay versus prevent? I don't see the distinction being clear enough to provide an objective standard.

Agree. I've been trying to write an educational article regarding such situations for a few years, but I've been unable to to get clear interpretations of such, and have put my project on the back burner.

Here's some of my research:

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.

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.

10-4-5-A: 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 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 13: A1 is at the free-throw line to shoot a free throw. The lead official bounces the ball to A1, and B1, who is in one of the free-throw lane spaces, a) reaches out and intercepts the bounce pass without breaking the vertical plane of the free-throw lane with either foot and then requests a time-out; or b) breaks the vertical plane of the free-throw lane and intercepts the bounce pass and then requests a time-out. RULING: This is NOT a warning for delay situation, as outlined by Rule 4-46. In both situations, a technical foul shall be called for B1 delaying the game by preventing the ball from being put in play. (10-3-7a)

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)

[BillyMac]

Here are some of my editorial notes:

In various delay/prevent situations after a goal scored:

If the action (throw-in plane, interfering with the ball), with more than five seconds remaining in the game, is delaying the game, go with a delay of game warning (or technical foul after prior warning). If less than five seconds remaining in the game, ignore such actions.

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.

If the action (at any point in the game, regardless of score, or time remaining) is preventing the ball from becoming live (one example, kicking the ball into the bleachers), go directly to a technical foul, not for delay of game, but for the act of preventing the ball from becoming live (no warning needed), and tack on a delay warning in the book.

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.

If it's egregious enough (or not if it's already dictated by rule of interpretation), sometimes we call the foul or the violation, even if there's no delay warning already given, and even if there's less than five seconds left.

There is a rule (Rule 10-1-5), and a casebook play (10.1.5 SITUATION D), that specifically state, in very clear terms, that we warn first when a player delays the game by interfering with the ball, by slapping it away, following a goal.

If the game is delayed by any of the following: commit a violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane, contact with the free thrower or a huddle of two or more players in the lane by either team prior to a free throw, interfering with the ball following a goal, or not having the court ready for play following any time-out, then by rule, a warning must be given prior to a technical foul being charged.

Delaying the game by interfering with the ball following a goal by slapping the ball away is a perfect example of the third type of delay, and thus, requires a warning.

https://forum.officiating.com/basket...me-events.html

[BillyMac]

4.42.3 SITUATION: Following a goal by A1 the ball is: (a) inadvertently deflected under the bleachers; When does the throw-in begin and the ball become live? RULING: In (a), the official shall signal for the clock to be stopped. The throw-in begins and the ball becomes live when it is at the disposal of Team B. (4-4-7d)

Here are some of my editorial notes:

To remain consistent with NFHS rules with regard to proper rulings in situations where the ball is caught, deflects off, or is otherwise contacted by a player after a made goal, officials must determine if the player intentionally caused the game to be delayed, or if the contact with the ball was unintentional and/or did not cause the game to be delayed.

The following situations would most likely not warrant a warning for delay or a team technical foul if there had been a prior warning for delay, even if the ruling official stops the clock because the ball is not immediately available to the player making the throw-in.
A1's try for goal is successful and the ball quickly passes through the basket and:
A-2 catches the ball and immediately drops the ball near the end line, causing no delay in Team B readily making a throw-in.
The ball deflects off multiple players and bounces away from the end line. A-1's deflection of the ball does not create an obvious advantage for his or her team or a disadvantage for the opposing team.

The following situations most likely would warrant a warning for delay or a team technical foul if there had been a prior warning for delay:
A-1's try for goal is successful. The ball quickly passes through the basket and:
A-2 catches the ball and tosses it away from the end line, causing the ruling official to sound his or her whistle and administer an end line throw-in to Team B.
A-2 catches the ball and tosses the ball to the new Trail official, causing a delay in Team B readily making a throw-in that the player would have normally been able to make in a timely manner.
A-2 intentionally deflects the ball away from the end line, causing a delay in Team B readily making a throw-in.
A-2's deflection of the ball creates an obvious advantage for his or her team or a disadvantage for the opposing team.

In general, if the ruling official judges that a player who catches, deflects, or otherwise contacts the ball following the ball passing through the basket is intentionally attempting to delay the game or otherwise create an advantage for his or her team or a disadvantage for the opposing team, the appropriate ruling would be a warning for the first infraction of Rule 4-47 (warnings for delay), or a team technical foul for interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay (10-3e). If the ruling official judges that the player's catching, deflecting, or contact with the ball was accidental, unintentional, or otherwise does not cause the game to be delayed, there would be no delay of game warning or technical foul charged.

[Valley Man]

I think it is clear in the comment from the case book play 9.2.10 SIT A

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 shall be ingnored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interfere 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.

[BillyMac]

4-19-14: An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

10-2-4: A team shall not: Commit an unsporting foul.

10-4-6: A player shall not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as …

[Valley Man]

Yep I am going with B.

No way I let the clock wind down with the ball in the bleachers.

Even if Team B misses both T free throws, turns the ball over at division line, and loses on a 3 pointer at the buzzer.