New one last night
 

VISITING team is down by 10 with 15 secs left in game come down and drain a 3 pointer. one of the VISITING players grabs the ball after it goes through the net and just holds it, bear hugs it actually. I am thinking, "what is he doing?" the clock is running and they are still down 7. I hear 'just hold it' from the bench. one of the home team players actually tries to grab the ball....i snapped out of my confusion and blow my whistle and issue a T. The visiting team bench asks me if there should have been a warning first, and i explained that this was an intentional act, an unsporting act and the T was warranted. I gave the T to the player that was holding the ball....my question is, should this have been a TEAM technical rather than a player tech?

It should have been a team warning for delay for interfering with the ball after a goal, not a technical foul. If it had been the team's second delay, it would be a team technical foul not charged to the player.

I suppose you "could" rule it unsporting, but why break into jail and give a T to the team that's going to lose when the rules give you a better alternative?

So if the team had just gone up 1 point you'd call it differently? Or would you add time back to the clock?

Either you're allowing the team to do something shady and helping them win, which stinks, or you're enforcing the rules in a manner not laid out in the rule book.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

You were right not to do anything until the home team attempted to get the ball. At that point it should have been a warning. I would not have been in any hurry to blow the whistle.

What are you talking about? How is assessing a delay warning in this situation not correct by rule?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Tangled Web ...
 

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

Not Limited To ...
 

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

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

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 <b>out</b> of trouble, not into it...

Thanks Patrick Ewing and Georgetown Hoyas ...
 

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".

https://media1.tenor.com/images/1fd5...itemid=4427957

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

I'm So Dizzy My Head Is Spinning (Tommy Roe, 1969) …
 

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.

Words Matter ...
 

"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.

A Nightmare On Forum Street ...
 

I can't believe that I'm giving advice to Nevadaref. Am I having a nightmare?

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.V...=0&w=288&h=163

You'd be incorrect....

Rule 10-4-5 (Player Technical)

Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play

Delay ...
 

My apologies for not being more specific.

"Delay" is my shorthand for:

10-2-1: Team Technical
Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts:
e. Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay.

I do not believe that there is a comparable version of this rule, listing four specific delay acts including "interfering", under Player Technical.

Delay, Interfere, Prevent ...
 

In my opinion, we have four rule references to deal with such "delay/interfere/prevent" situations as described in this thread:

Team Warning
A team warning is a warning to a team for delay for interfering with the ball following a goal.
I call this the "delay warning" option (four specifics listed, including interfering). Only a team (not player) technical foul.

Team Technical Foul
Teams shall not allow the game to develop into an actionless contest including interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay.
I call this the "delay technical" (four specifics listed including interfering) option. By rule, there must be a warning. Only a team (not player) technical foul.

Team Technical Foul Or Player Technical Foul
Teams and players shall not delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play.
I call this the "prevent" option. Team technical foul or player technical foul. I suggest that a player (rather than a team) technical foul is more appropriate (it matters because of disqualification).

Team Technical Foul Or Player Technical Foul
Teams and players shall not commit unsporting fouls (not limited to).
I call this the "unsporting" option. Team technical foul or player technical foul. I suggest that a player (rather than a team) technical foul is more appropriate (it matters because of disqualification).

Which rule do we use? Ay, there’s the rub!

Someone will have to check all the particulars, but if the delay is due to ONE PLAYER make it a player technical foul. If more than one player, make it a TEAM technical. The "T after warning" falls into the later category because we don't know that teh same player will commit both the "warning act" and the "technical act."

There's No I In Team ...
 

Great point.

Exactly why the warning for delay for interfering with the ball following a goal (or any of the other three specific delay acts listed), and the technical foul for delay for interfering with the ball following a goal (or any of the other three specific delay acts listed), is always warned and/or charged to the team (never to a player).

Five Options ...
 

Actually five options:

9.2.10.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 should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock.

I call this the "five second" option.

Ball Or Thrower ...
 

Here's a key statement:

9.2.10 SITUATION A: ... an interfering with the ball following a goal if 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.

There's a slight wording difference between interfering with the ball following a goal and interfering with the thrower’s efforts to make a throw-in.

If a defender is interfering with the thrower’s efforts to make a throw-in, is that a violation of interfering with the ball following a goal, preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play, or is it unsporting?

I say no (because of the word ball in the rule), yes, and yes.

Narrows it down to two choices. Both can be (and probably should be) player technical fouls. Same penalties. Either should suffice to deal with this situation.

I prefer delaying the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play because, like the caseplay, it has the word "delay" in it.

Final Answer ...
 

After much research, rational thought, and contributions from Forum members:

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

https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.X...=0&w=228&h=177