Crazy end of game situation.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Grail
There is definitely a case book play on this. It says you can T immediately in this case.

Had a similar play a couple of years ago. Scoring situation is exactly the same as in this play. 5 seconds on the clock when the 3 went through. Leading team wouldn't even pick up the ball to inbound it. Trailing team tried to bat the ball to the inbounder, but the inbounder did an OLE and the ball goes to the wall. My partner T'd the leading team for "Unsportsmanlike" because they wouldn't pick up the ball. Fortuantely it all worked out, as all the shots were missed. We looked it up and found the case play.

Seems like if the offense didn't want to pick the ball up, we should just start the 5 count, we can't make them pick it up, and when we get to 5, we blow our whistle or the horn goes off before we get to 5... which is most likely what will happen and the game is over anyways!!!! They have 5 seconds to throw it in, whether they are trying to throw in or not.... if the kid is standing there with the ball and not even trying to throw it in, we are counting, isn't that the same thing??? either way you get a 5 second count or game over! [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed. That's the best answer, but when the ball went to the wall my partner felt he had to call something. He got it wrong, thus prompting the research. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yup, live and learn. Once the clock is stopped, though, I think you've got to give the T. Yea, they might miss both shots, and the inbounds pass might be stolen, but you've at least cut way, way down the chance that your cheaters will profit from their crime. The T is certainly more fair than the warning-only.

[Jurassic Referee]

Case book play 9.2.11COMMENT:- In situations with the clock running and 5 or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in violation or interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if it's only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's effort to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even if 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".

Iow, if there's less than 5 seconds left, just let the clock run out.

[walter]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Case book play 9.2.11COMMENT:- In situations with the clock running and 5 or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in violation or interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if it's only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's effort to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even if 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".

Iow, if there's less than 5 seconds left, just let the clock run out.

I agree that letting the clock run out is probably the easiest way to handle this situation. However, as your quote points out, if the tactic interferes witht he throw-in or the effort to make a throw-in the "T" should be called. My guess is the partner in this situation instantly reacted to the slapping away of the ball and hit the whistle. My opinion, for what it's worth, is once he did that, the "T" has to be assessed. It was a deliberate act that got the desired result, a stoppage of the clock. The lesson I see here is to be aware of the clock and withhold the whistle, if possible, under five seconds and let it run out. The leading team is under no obligation to complete a throw-in in that situation. Even if the leading team took the ball after the goal, the thrower could have just stood out of bounds and let the clock expire. Like I said though, once the partner hit the whistle, he should have given the "T" and not the warning. The offending team got away with what they wanted.

[Camron Rust]

Should have either ignored the infraction or called a T. No warning is necessary. Rule 10-3-7.

The best choice would be to ignore the infraction since it would seal the win for the offended team. If the T is called, the offended team could still get the ball back and score.

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by Camron Rust
Should have either ignored the infraction or called a T. No warning is necessary. Rule 10-3-7.

The best choice would be to ignore the infraction since it would seal the win for the offended team. If the T is called, the offended team could still get the ball back and score.

Acutally, as JR so correctly quoted the Case (9.2.11 Comment) for this sitch, there is no "choice" really...the official is instructed to ignore the "last second tactic".

rainmaker said they were "cheaters" and Camron used 10-3-7 to call it an unsporting act...I just think it was "stupid". The coach was trying to use what he thought was a legal tactic, per the rules, to give his team a chance to win, and as usual...the coach didn't know the rules. JR's Case Play shows that the delay is neither cheating or unsporting...it is just a tactic that is ignored.

Now, since the official also didn't know the rule, or just got flustered and stopped the clock...we have a situation where you can't just run off 5 seconds, and if you give the ball to the team behind, you have allowed the team to benefit from it's tactic.
Therefore, IMO, the T is issued at this point...Hmmmm, maybe that is why rainmaker was using 2-3 and Camron 10-3-7....to justify the T after the officials mistake.

JR...why does Case 9.2.11 mention B1 reaching "through the boundary plane" and knocking the ball out of A1's hands...and then states that Team B "has not been warned previously for a throw-in plane violation."?

This isn't a warning situation...it's an automatic T Rule 10-3-11 PENALTY...so why mention the warning that has not been given?

[ChuckElias]

Best option: Do nothing and let clock run.
Next option: Stop clock and T.
Worst option: Stop clock and don't T.

Now, for all you "travesty" advocates, please remember that the penalty for making a travesty of the game is not a technical foul -- it's a forfeit! For some reason, I've had to post this same point 3 or 4 times in the last month or so. A travesty of the game is an extreme situation. It's refusing to play when being told to; or repeatedly committing the same technical foul. It's not simply knocking the ball away.

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by RookieDude
we have a situation where you can't just run off 5 seconds,

There was an NFL game just this season in which the offense was on the opponents' 5 yard line or so with less than 10 seconds in the game. They committed a false start and offcials said that part of the penalty was to take 10 seconds off the clock. Game over!!

We could adopt that one. Touch the ball after a basket in the last 5 seconds (or whatever time we decide) and it's a T and take 5 seconds off the clock.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Now, for all you "travesty" advocates, please remember that the penalty for making a travesty of the game is not a technical foul -- it's a forfeit!

yea, you're right, it's not a travesty, in the rulebook sense of the word. I just wanted Junker to realize that the penalty for this kind of bad sportsmanship should be more severe than a warning. In that sense, it meets the dictionary definition of making a mockery of the last few seconds of the game.

Now, change of subject. Chuck, would you T the coach, in addition to T'ing the player?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by walter

I agree that letting the clock run out is probably the easiest way to handle this situation. However, as your quote points out, if the tactic interferes with the throw-in or the effort to make a throw-in the "T" should be called.

The cite doesn't say that at all, Walter. Letting the clock run out is the only way to handle this situation, as per the language of the case play cited above. The interference with the ball happened before the throw-in began. You can't call a T for "interfering with a thrower's effort to make a throw-in" if there never was a throw-in in the first place.

R4-42-3---The throw-in begins.....when the ball is at the disposal of the team entitled to it". The ball never was at the disposal of the throwing team in the situation that we're discussing.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Oct 21st, 2005 at 07:16 PM]

[RookieDude]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

There was an NFL game just this season in which the offense was on the opponents' 5 yard line or so with less than 10 seconds in the game. They committed a false start and offcials said that part of the penalty was to take 10 seconds off the clock. Game over!!

We could adopt that one. Touch the ball after a basket in the last 5 seconds (or whatever time we decide) and it's a T and take 5 seconds off the clock.

Yea...I saw that game and was thinking the same thing when I typed that. (Wasn't that Kurt Warner and the Cardinals that did that?)
Speaking of the NFC West...how bout those Seahawks!!!

You're in big trouble this Sunday Cowboys.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

The cite doesn't say that at all, Walter. Letting the clock run out is the only way to handle this situation, as per the language of the case play cited above. The interference with the ball happened before the throw-in began. You can't call a T for "interfering with a thrower's effort to make a throw-in" if there never was a throw-in in the first place.

R4-42-3---The throw-in begins.....when the ball is at the disposal of the team entitled to it". The ball never was at the disposal of the throwing team in the situation that we're discussing.

That depends on how you define "at the disposal." Personally, once the ball has gone through the net and the team getting the ball has had what in my mind is a reasonable opportunity to pick it up, I'm starting the count. If it happens to be at the end of this game as posted in the original sitch, I'm pretty sure I'm gonna get to 5 before the player has a chance to go get it. If the kid is smart enough, he won't even make a move toward the ball.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally posted by Grail

I am not about to climb up into the attic, but it does not matter whether Team B has has received a delay of game warning or not. B1's actions are a technical foul charged to B1 for delay of game. There is a casebook play that addresses this type of action by B1 directly.

MTD, Sr.

There is definitely a case book play on this. It says you can T immediately in this case.

Had a similar play a couple of years ago. Scoring situation is exactly the same as in this play. 5 seconds on the clock when the 3 went through. Leading team wouldn't even pick up the ball to inbound it. Trailing team tried to bat the ball to the inbounder, but the inbounder did an OLE and the ball goes to the wall. My partner T'd the leading team for "Unsportsmanlike" because they wouldn't pick up the ball. Fortuantely it all worked out, as all the shots were missed. We looked it up and found the case play. [/B][/QUOTE]
To call a T on the inbounding team for this is absurd. They have 5 seconds to get the ball and throw it in. Refusing to throw the ball in is hardly and unsporting act. It is simply a violation. That's kinda like telling a football team that's up 2 points, with the ball, that they need to hurry up and score so the other team will get another chance to score and win the game instead of kneeling on the ball and letting the clock run out.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by RookieDude
[/B]

1) Now, since the official also didn't know the rule, or just got flustered and stopped the clock...we have a situation where you can't just run off 5 seconds, and if you give the ball to the team behind, you have allowed the team to benefit from it's tactic.
Therefore, IMO, the T is issued at this point.

2) JR...why does Case 9.2.11 mention B1 reaching "through the boundary plane" and knocking the ball out of A1's hands...and then states that Team B "has not been warned previously for a throw-in plane violation."?

This isn't a warning situation...it's an automatic T Rule 10-3-11 PENALTY...so why mention the warning that has not been given?


[/B][/QUOTE]1) Certainly gotta agree with that logic. You can't let the scoring team benefit in any way from their delaying tactic.

2) I think that the case book play is just reinforcing the idea that a warning is not needed in this particular case- is all. In this particular situation, you issue an official warning along with the T.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

1) Now, since the official also didn't know the rule, or just got flustered and stopped the clock...we have a situation where you can't just run off 5 seconds, and if you give the ball to the team behind, you have allowed the team to benefit from it's tactic.
Therefore, IMO, the T is issued at this point.

2) JR...why does Case 9.2.11 mention B1 reaching "through the boundary plane" and knocking the ball out of A1's hands...and then states that Team B "has not been warned previously for a throw-in plane violation."?

This isn't a warning situation...it's an automatic T Rule 10-3-11 PENALTY...so why mention the warning that has not been given?


[/B]

1) Certainly gotta agree with that logic. You can't let the scoring team benefit in any way from their delaying tactic.

2) I think that the case book play is just reinforcing the idea that a warning is not needed in this particular case- is all. In this particular situation, you issue an official warning along with the T. [/B][/QUOTE]

I don't even think you bother issuing the "official warning" with the T. In my mind, at this point, the T IS the official warning.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Nevermind. I just got off my lazy arse, pulled out the book, and see that the comment says you issue the warning and the T. That's why.