Gottcha...Thanks.

I finally had a little more time to go back and read the sit correctly. I thought the team that was AHEAD knocked the ball oob. I read in a hurry and didn't think a team would do something that stupid. I say no T, let the clock run and they go home with a loss. It is more stupid than unsporting to me, and of course no where near a travesty.

Good point, JR. The way I look at it is if the team entitled to the trhow-in has a reasonable opportunity to get the ball and start the throw-in, I begin my count. In this situation, they never had that option because B's player slapped the ball away. To me that is interfering with the throw-in. In any event, if the official had knowledge of the clock and time remaining, he could have held his whistle and let time run out. The point of my post was that once he blew his whistle, he should have given the "T" to the offending team. To handle it the way they did, i.e. with a warning, was just plain wrong IMO.

Which would be incredibly stupid, since it's now their ball to inbound. But revising the situation a little, it takes a different twist.

Say at 4 seconds to go, A scores to lead by 2, and then knocks the ball away. Now it makes sense to stop the clock and issue the T. Letting the clock run would be the worst thing you could do!

That was exactly the point that RookieDude made. I certainly agree with him, and you, on that. A warning alone would benefit the scoring team, and that's wrong.

Say at 4 seconds to go, A scores to lead by 2, and then knocks the ball away. Now it makes sense to stop the clock and issue the T. Letting the clock run would be the worst thing you could do! [/B][/QUOTE]I'm assuming that B doesn't have any TO's left, right?

Doesn't the rule we have now serve the same purpose? A is trying to gain an advantage by letting the clock run out before B can in-bound the ball. Calling the warning immediately negates that advantage by stopping the clock to administer the formal warning, then allowing B a non-spot end-line throw-in with the clock still stopped. Adding a T would be double jeopardy- 2 penalties for the price of one. Jmo.

I did not intend to use 10-3-7 unsporting (others specifically mention unsporting but I didn't)....I was going off an older book. The 2004-05 number is actually 10-3-6a (I don't have the new book yet so it could be different still).

<FONT COLOR=BLUE>10-3-6a: A player shall not....Delay the game by acts such as: <em>Preventing the ball from being made live promptly</em> or from being put in play.</FONT>

The original situation said "As soon as they hit the three one of their players grabbed the ball and <FONT COLOR=RED>knocked it way over to the side</FONT>."

The difference between the "delay" situation, as I see it, and this is a matter of severity. It is different than a player merely catching the ball after it drops through the net and holding it for 1-2 seconds then dropping it at that spot or a player tapping the ball towards the endline such that it slows the throwin down a little. The comparison not that much different than a common foul and an excessive contact intentional foul.

I do think that ignoring it and letting the 5 count run out is a valid (and recommended) judgement but the T is not incorrect.

Even 9.2.11 provides the option of a T if it interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throwin. Knocking the ball so far away that they can't even pick it up seems to fit that description.

[Edited by Camron Rust on Oct 22nd, 2005 at 06:55 AM]

See 2005-06 Case Book, page #67. 9.2.11 Last second tactic would get a T and also a warning for good measure.