Exam Question Thoughts

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 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 ignored 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.

I fully understand what your'e saying, but ...

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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)

So, based on 9.2.10 SIT A COMMENT: We charge a technical foul with four seconds left, but only warn (assuming no previous warning) with six seconds left?

Also, doesn't even a slight tap of the ball by Team A "interfere with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in", and isn't even a slight tap's "only purpose ... to stop the clock"?

While I see Valley Man's point, I also fully agree with LRZ:

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.

Originally Posted by 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 …

As LRZ points out, I would like a "more objective" standard from the NFHS.

Right now we've got a smorgasbord of delay, prevent, interfere, warning, technical foul, violation, unsporting, over/under five, stop clock, ignore, advantage/disadvantage, and egregious to choose from.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

So, based on 9.2.10 SIT A COMMENT: We charge a technical foul with four seconds left, but only warn (assuming no previous warning) with six seconds left?

No...if it is enough to T at 4 seconds, it is enough to T at 4 minutes.

Sometimes, you just have to referee.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

No...if it is enough to T at 4 seconds, it is enough to T at 4 minutes. Sometimes, you just have to referee.

On a ball obviously premeditatedly and intentionally tossed into the bleachers (or kicked into the rafters) to stop the clock, or to allow the new defense to set up a press, regardless of score, or time remaining, I agree.

My immediate impulse in a real game would be to charge an unsporting player technical foul (and record a written delay warning) that doesn't have the requirement of a prior written warning.

Now change the situation to a ball slightly tapped away a few feet, which may not have been obviously intentional, or obviously premeditated, maybe add a little five second over/under for fun, or don't, and we may be entering a gray area? Maybe make this (just slightly tapped, not tossed, not kicked, not swatted "into the bleachers") a question on a written exam?

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Sometimes, you just have to referee.

That's why we get paid the big bucks, not to take a written exam, but to get out on the court to officiate a real life game.