Last night, Girls sophomore game. Blue leads by 5 with about 7 seconds to play. White makes a basket, but has no timeouts. Blue refuses to pick up the ball for the inbound. White tries to flip the ball to the inbounder, as my partner blows the whistle. He calls a technical for unsportsmanlike conduct on Blue.

White makes both free throws and inbounds the ball from half court. The buzzer-beater rattles out and Blue wins by one.

I'm thinking that the T was unnecessary. Just start counting when the ball was available to Blue for the inbound. White would still have gotten the ball with one or 2 seconds left.

Comments.

A technical foul is completely uncalled for in this situation and unsupportable by rule. The blue team has 5 seconds to inbound the ball. If they choose not to, it's a violation. It's not unsporting to use the whole five seconds. It's smart clock management. That's absolutely horrible.

I agree. I would not have called a technical foul. IMHO, the act isn't unsporting, but is more delaying the game. I guess if you really wanted to, you could stop the clock and give a warning for delay of game, which would then force the team to inbound the ball anyway.

The rules already have a remedy for this situation. Just start the 5 second count and save the T for when you really need it.

Like Chuck said Blue has 5 seconds and they can use them all. You can't call delay of game here, that is as bad as a T..Chuck hit the nail on the head, great clock management....

No, you could not!! There is no justification by rule for not allowing the throw-in team to use all five seconds. This is not a delay situation. This is good strategy, period.

The only warnings we give for delay are clearly defined by rule. 1) Scoring team interfering with the ball after a made basket; 2) Defense breaking the plane of the OOB during a throw-in; and 3) Huddling in the lane when the official is ready to administer a FT.

Don't make up stuff just because you don't like the situation. That's like officials who call GT when a shot is blocked off the backboard.

There is no justification by rule for a whistle in the original situation.

Lucky for you Blue won. I wouldn't have been a happy camper if there was OT. I hope you had a few choice words for your partner in the privacy of the locker room.

When the ball is at the disposal of blue they have five seconds to inbound the ball. It would only be a technical foul if also violates then blue fails in inbound the ball within five seconds a second time.

Also take a look at what basketball says an unsportsmanlike technical foul is. I don’t think not in bounding the ball fall under any of those. 10-4-7

I did have a few words for my partner after the game. I phrased them with, "lets break the play down" and then we discussed.

I agree whole heartedly that a T was not warranted.

Now lets add a wrinkle (actually happened). When white batted the ball towards blue, the ball rolled 12 feet back to the wall because blue wouldn't take the ball. I believe that White would have left the ball alone had my partner been counting, but after they caused it to roll to the wall, could he have given a delay warning? If he does, the clock stops and Blue has to inbound giving White an unmerited advantage. Could he have T'd white for delay, thus negating the benefit caused by just giving a warning?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias
I think eastcoastref may have been referring to the ball contact made after the basket which, unless the ball is knocked so far from the playing floor, I would not stop the clock. It sounds like the ball contact was not so significant.

What team was attempting to delay? It wasn’t the white team. By rule you could issue a warning to white, but then you’re only justifying what blue is doing. It’s one thing if blue was going after the ball to in-bound it.

That’s just my two cents worth and you may have over paid for it.

The rule is question should be applied when Team A, after scoring, handles the ball in such a manner that causes Team B from inbounding the ball in a timely manner. If A1 picks up and passes, bats, or taps the ball to B1 in a manner that is in the spirit of good sportsmanship, then there is no infraction of the rule.

MTD, Sr.

The tap was not an infraction, but after the ball rolled too far away to be inbounded by Blue in a timely fashion we have an issue.

Since the ball was sitting on the baseline near Blue's feet, White had no need to touch the ball other than an attempt to force Blue to put the ball in play.

Again, I think the solution was simple. Blue could have picked up the ball, start counting. If my partner was counting, White would not have touched the ball. If they insist on batting the ball to Blue to get them to play, and the ball is now rolling away, T up White for delay, or ignore it completely and continue to count to 5.

It would only be a “T” if it was whites second time delaying.

You can always blow the whistle and admitter a throw-in to blue, for the ball no longer being at the disposal of blue.

Even though that gives White the advantage they were trying to create, a stopped clock and the chance to steal the inbound pass?

Easy...if the official is "on the ball".

7 seconds left.
White taps ball toward Blue, ball rolls toward wall...clock keeps running...6, 5, 4, 3, tweet!
Delay warning to White.
Blue has ball for Spot Throw-in w/ 3 seconds left and up by 5.

This is a no right answer situation, but calling the T was wrong.

My opinion, you have two teams playing heads up basketball.
B is smart to use the time, A was smart for trying to force the throw in.

The count should have started on B, as the ball was available for a throw in. When A contacted the ball and it was no longer available, you have to stop the clock and warn for delay.

B gets some time off and A forces the throw in, so both teams get partially rewarded for heads up play.

[Edited by blindzebra on Nov 18th, 2004 at 01:12 PM]

I don't think so could be wrong.

See 9.2.11 CMT

9.2.11 comment.

Although, I don't think it really applies to this play as it was described.

The act of touching by A was not an attempt to force a warning, they were trying to make B throw it in.

That's for a reach and hitting the ball out of the throwers hand.

I think you are seeing this wrong BushRef. The ball was not pushed or touched to prevent or hinder the inbounding team from inbounding. The inbounder chose not to catch or pick-up the ball that was at their disposal.

For example, a made basket bounces out to the freethrow line. A defender rolls or bounces the ball toward the inbounder. The inbounder choses not to catch or pick-up the ball and lets it roll until it hits a wall or stops. You don't whack the defender for that action.

Could be a T (If unsporting) proper call is a warning for delay. Give ball back (hand it to the team throwing it in this time) to original team. Seven second left in the game defensive team has gained an advatage (odds highly stacked against them I admit) because you did stop the clock with the T. Incidently I might "hold my whistle" and get it down to 3 seconds before I called the violation.

I'm late getting in on this one...

When the thrower could have had the ball OOB for the throwin, I start my count. If I get to 5 before the clock expires I'll call a throwin violation.

If that ball was OOB and at the feet of the thrower, I'll definitely have a count going. If the defense then reaches across the line and touches the ball, it will be a T.

Riddle me this why would you call a Technical Foul? Assuming of course no warning for delay has previously been given and defensive team has not reached across the plane and touched the ball?

The ball was ALREADY at B's disposal BEFORE A contacted it, and the 5 second count SHOULD have already started.

The rules provide for the throw in to begin if the throwing team CAN pick up the ball and throw it in, but are delaying.

The official should have started a count on B, the touching by A at that point would be a delay, but I don't think it falls under the 9.2.11 play, because A's intent was not to cause a stoppage for a delay warning.

The defending team is losing. It's to their advantage to stop the clock. I fail to see how the defending team (if losing) is gaining an advantage by preventing the team that is winning from inbounding the ball.

That's what I said in my first post. The only one doing the wrong thing in this play was the official that called the T on the throwing team.

You have B rightfully delaying to run the clock, you have A attempting to get the ball to B, but they are not hitting it into a corner or breaking the plane to purposely delay.

You have two teams playing heads up ball.

We have a rule that supports starting the count.

We have rule support for calling a delay and a non-warned T for delay.

What seems the fairest based on game situation and the intent of the players is to start the count, have some time come off and warn, but not T, A for delay and get it done.

Because A has touched the ball away from B's disposal, if you continue the count to a 5 second violation, I guarantee A will be shooting 2 FTs after B's coach gets the T.

Yes, you have rules support and would not be wrong in giving A a T, but I think a warning is more appropriate in this situation.

What based on B's stalling did A truely gain in this situation? A is down 5 with 7 seconds left, we have 3 possible outcomes:

1) B stalls down to 1 or 2 seconds and whistle violation, A's ball, still down 5. 1a) You ignore A's touch and keep counting to the violation and you have to whack B's coach.

2) You call the T on A for an unwarned delay, B shoots 2 gets ball at division line up 5,6, or 7 with 3 or 4 seconds left.

3) You start your count on B, blow your whistle on the touch by A and warn, B's ball up 5 with 3 or 4 seconds left with the end line to run.

1 and 1a benefit A.

2 benefits B and the penalty based on the intent, as discribed, seems harsh.

3 does not hurt either team, the only difference is B can't take the running clock down to 1 or 2 seconds. A gained a couple of seconds life, and B keeps the ball and the end line run. Seems very fair based on this situation.

Let's get personal, the score does not change a thing.

It still comes down to an unusual situation and using common sense. Also 9.2.11 says 5 seconds or less on that throw in, this situation was at 7 seconds. I'm not so blind afterall. ;)

Case Book 9-2-11 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.

There was seven seconds to go in the game so this doesn’t apply at all. This comment is when blue wouldn’t have to inbound the ball prior to time expiring, not the case here. Next white didn’t do it to try to stop the clock, but they were trying to get blue to inbound the ball. Next blue was making no attempt to inbound the ball so they couldn’t interfere with a thrower’s effort. By the same comment you quoted you would only ignore the delay even if there was five seconds or less to go.

So you couldn’t issue a “T” to white unless it was there second such delay.