New one last night

[BryanV21]

You said they were going lose anyway so why do something he "could" do. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the way you worded it seems off.

This rule seems to need amending as it can be taken advantage of, which isn't in the spirit of the game.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

You said they were going lose anyway so why do something he "could" do. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the way you worded it seems off.

This rule seems to need amending as it can be taken advantage of, which isn't in the spirit of the game.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Any supervisor I have ever worked for is not going to be happy if he gets a phone call from the losing coach asking why they were given a T instead of a delay warning in the OP's situation. Contrarily, no one can argue with a straight face that this is not a delay of game situation.

If you think an unsporting T is the better option in this situation than a delay warning - I don't know what to tell you. You are breaking into jail by going straight to a T here, and possibly misapplying the rules as well.

[Altor]

Is this play that much different from the case play where the teams hits the ball into the stands to induce a DoG warning? Doesn't that play give the official to options to assess a technical foul or just let the clock expire while the ball is retrieved?

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Altor

Is this play that much different from the case play where the teams hits the ball into the stands to induce a DoG warning? Doesn't that play give the official to options to assess a technical foul or just let the clock expire while the ball is retrieved?

Key is "gives the official the option." Just because you have the option to do something doesn't mean it's the best choice.

[tw1ns]

Originally Posted by Altor

Is this play that much different from the case play where the teams hits the ball into the stands to induce a DoG warning? Doesn't that play give the official to options to assess a technical foul or just let the clock expire while the ball is retrieved?

That's kinda what went through my mind as it was happening...recalling that play and the intent that went with it. I probably would have just let the clock run out, but one of the home team players starting grabbing and wrestling him for the ball....thats when i issued the T.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Any supervisor I have ever worked for is not going to be happy if he gets a phone call from the losing coach asking why they were given a T instead of a delay warning in the OP's situation. Contrarily, no one can argue with a straight face that this is not a delay of game situation.



If you think an unsporting T is the better option in this situation than a delay warning - I don't know what to tell you. You are breaking into jail by going straight to a T here, and possibly misapplying the rules as well.

I'm not saying give the tech. I'm asking you that stuff based on what you said. Why even bring up the idea of possibly giving the unsportsmanlike?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

There is more going on here. Perhaps the point differential in the game matters for a tie-breaker or playoff seeding.

What this team did was more than merely knock the ball away following a goal. They grabbed it, deliberately held it, and caused a confrontation with the opponent when he rightfully tried to obtain it. I would issue a player technical foul in this situation for delay of game. The rules book language is something akin to preventing the ball from being made promptly live.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

... more than merely knock the ball away following a goal. They grabbed it, deliberately held it, and caused a confrontation with the opponent when he rightfully tried to obtain it. I would issue a player technical foul in this situation for delay of game ...

I would rather go the unsporting; or preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play route.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is more going on here. Perhaps the point differential in the game matters for a tie-breaker or playoff seeding.

What this team did was more than merely knock the ball away following a goal. They grabbed it, deliberately held it, and caused a confrontation with the opponent when he rightfully tried to obtain it. I would issue a player technical foul in this situation for delay of game. The rules book language is something akin to preventing the ball from being made promptly live.

Agree. When the player refused to release the ball, it moved from being a simple delay to preventing the ball from becoming live..

10-4 PLAYER TECHNICAL
A player must not
ART. 5...Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

This rule seems to need amending as it can be taken advantage of, which isn't in the spirit of the game.

Agree.

With the Google Document link below, find my research on this and similar situations. For years I've been meaning to write on article on such situations but can't seem to come up with any "solid" recommendations based on the rules, or on casebook plays. It's just research and not even close to an article, but it shows the complexity of the issue.

The terminology that unsporting fouls are "not limited to" makes it a valid option.

The terminology of preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play makes it another valid option.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

[Danvrapp]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree.

With the Google Document link below...

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

Great read! Anyone that can make sense of it all after only 1 time through is better than me, however, but a great collection of case plays and rule citations to help bring thought and understanding to the issue.

For the number of times that an official may run into the end-of-game-delay situation in any given year, definitely worth review! A great example of knowing how to use the rule book to get out of trouble, not into it...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Danvrapp

Great read! For the number of times that an official may run into the end-of-game-delay situation in any given year, definitely worth review!

Thanks, but it's not even a real first draft. It's just "random" spit-balling research. I hesitated to draw any conclusions due to "conflicting" rules and caseplays.

Too many rule-based possibilities, often conflicting.

Warning after delay. Technical foul after the warning for delay. "Instant" technical foul for preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play. "Instant" technical foul for unsporting acts not limited to ...

Is "instant" technical foul for delay allowed by rule?

Some are team technicals (preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play, unsporting, and delay of game), and some are player technicals (only preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play, and unsporting (not for delay of game)), further complicating matters.

And then there are the "cast in stone" penalties (no discretion allowed): 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.

And for added flavor throw in "more than five seconds" and "less than five seconds".

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

And for added flavor throw in "more than five seconds" and "less than five seconds".

That’s what I was thinking from when I first read the OP: if this is under five seconds, there’s that case play that says to ignore the delay tactic if the clock is running.

But in this case it sounds like there were more than five seconds (slow-blow the warning if you must), and on top of that you had a home team player actively trying to get the ball for reasons unknown—probably just habitual hustle sans game awareness. So I like how we arrived at the solution of issuing a player technical in this case; it is very defendable by rule and the right choice to prevent escalation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

So I like how we arrived at the solution of issuing a player technical in this case; it is very defendable by rule and the right choice to prevent escalation.

Agree. But which rule was used?

"Instant" technical foul for preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play? Fine choice. If chosen, team technical foul, or player technical foul? Both are rule options. How does one choose? The choice does impact player disqualification, so it's not just "academic"? I suggest it's a player technical foul.

Or "instant" technical foul for unsporting acts not limited to ...? Another good choice. If chosen, team technical foul, or player technical foul? Both are rule options. How does one choose? The choice does impact player disqualification, so it's not just "academic"? I suggest it's a player technical foul.

Or "instant" technical foul for delay? I'm not 100% sure that this choice is a rule (without a prior warning). Also, "delay" can only be a team (not player) technical foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I would issue a player technical foul in this situation for delay of game. The rules book language is something akin to preventing the ball from being made promptly live.

"Instant" technical foul for preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play? Good interpretation, but be sure to use this rule language.

"Instant" technical foul for delay? I'm not 100% sure that is a rule without an earlier warning. Also, "delay" can only be a team (not player) technical foul. Be careful with the rule language.