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.

[genetoy71]

Originally Posted by 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.

Although not specifically stated in the exam question, in real time and under actual game conditions the horn is likely going to sound and the clock will display all 0's. I tried to read the first sentence of the exam question and couldn't even do that in 4 seconds. I just don't see it as probable that any of the three officials are going to mentally process the made basket; the ball falling to the floor; the ball being swatted; blow a whistle and give the stop-clock signal and with any degree of certainty be able to say what the clock read when the ball was swatted into the bleachers. Without definitive knowledge, you can't put time back on the clock. Without time on the clock, you wouldn't shoot the free throws and the game is over. If you do put time back on the clock then I believe you're just guessing and you deserve the wrath of the coach if his player misses both free throws, his team turns the ball over, and he loses on a buzzer-beater 3.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by griblets

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.

9.3.3 SITUATION D: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, intentionally runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called. RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

[BigCat]

Test tip,
If you see words like “swat” or “strikes” the answer is likely always to be the more severe penalty. They don’t ever want to allow a kid to swat or throw the ball into the stands.
Now, at my age...with clock running out.. I tell the kid who did it to go get the ball. Then I run off the floor. I’m not waiting another 10 minutes for free throws and other nonsense.

Younger guys, call the T and if you see it on a test... The answer will be a T.

[SNIPERBBB]

Originally Posted by genetoy71

Although not specifically stated in the exam question, in real time and under actual game conditions the horn is likely going to sound and the clock will display all 0's. I tried to read the first sentence of the exam question and couldn't even do that in 4 seconds. I just don't see it as probable that any of the three officials are going to mentally process the made basket; the ball falling to the floor; the ball being swatted; blow a whistle and give the stop-clock signal and with any degree of certainty be able to say what the clock read when the ball was swatted into the bleachers. Without definitive knowledge, you can't put time back on the clock. Without time on the clock, you wouldn't shoot the free throws and the game is over. If you do put time back on the clock then I believe you're just guessing and you deserve the wrath of the coach if his player misses both free throws, his team turns the ball over, and he loses on a buzzer-beater 3.

You can do all that in 4 tenths of a second. Ball is likely still hasnt even hit its apex yet.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by SNIPERBBB

You can do all that in 4 tenths of a second. Ball is likely still hasnt even hit its apex yet.

Seriously. If an official can't see this and make a decision in under 4 seconds, that official has a lot bigger problems to worry about. Just remember, on the court, we see situations, not read them. A picture is worth 1000 words!