I was doing a holiday tournament championship game a couple of years ago and a team was trailing by five points with just under twenty seconds or so to play. I was not the referee and it was just a two-man that night. Well The team down by five come down after a missed free throw and nailed a three pointer cutting the lead to two with under five seconds to play and also they did NOT have a timeout left . What happened next was the crazy part. As soon as they hit the three one of their players grabbed the ball and knocked it way over to the side. Well my partner stops the clock while the ball is being retrieved and to me it should have either warranted just letting the clock run out or asssessing a technical foul for the end of game tactic. The coach said I told them to do it to stop the clock. The other teams coach was going nuts as you could imagine We had a little huddle and discussed it and my partner (who was the referee) decided to take the ball out of bounds. They inbounded the ball and were fouled immediately . We went to the other end to shoot the one and one with three seconds left in the contest. Yes you guessed it he missed the front end and the other team got the rebound threw one pass to around midcourt and heaved up a desperation potential game winning three at the buzzer and luckily for me and my partner it bounced off the front of the rim WHEW. I Want some feedback on this so it does not happen to anyone else at the end of a game. I know now this was not the way to handle the situation, but I was not sure at the time. I like reading the posts on this site some have really been help to me.

[Edited by moref on Oct 24th, 2005 at 11:18 PM]

I probably would have gave the kid a Technical Foul for unsportsman like conduct. That was an intentional delay of game to get an advantage. Just my 2 cents.

There is you answer right there. T - delay of game or I am sure there is something like travesty of the game.

Without looking anything up (that's my disclaimer if I boot this), I'd say you stop the clock, have the scorer record a delay of game warning on the team that knocked the ball out, and you inbound as normal. If they've already had a delay warning, then you can call a T. I think that's your only option under NFHS.

They are entitled to a warning under NFHS rules though. I'd say calling this a travesty is pushing it.

There's always 2-3. Seriously, you'd stop the clock, give the warning and let the team that did this inbound the ball? Wow.

If partners could agree by eye contact somehow, I'd say the best choice would be to let the clock run out. Once you stop the clock, I think you've got to whack. The word in the rule book that applies is "travesty," as ThickSkin noted.

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.

If it had been a rough game, I might even T or toss the coach for telling his players to do this. What a you-know-what.

I also might add that is exactly what he wanted me to do is give him a warning, but I just don't know if a T would help either as they could miss both free throws an the inbounds pass at halfcourt could be stolen. If under five seconds I think just let the clock run out.

[Edited by moref on Oct 21st, 2005 at 02:37 PM]

I believe that travesty was emphasized in the rule book to prevent teams from having one of their players run to the endline and bark like a dog to distract the other team. So maybe in this case, that is pushing it a little.

Honestly, had this been me I would have either let the clock run out or T the kid... and then probably his/her coach LOL!

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. [/B][/QUOTE]

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.

From Dictionary.com:

trav·es·ty n. pl. trav·es·ties

1. An exaggerated or grotesque imitation...

2. A debased or grotesque likeness: a travesty of justice.

I think this play qualifies.

My point was, again without looking, how is this situation different than a player batting the ball oob in order for their team to set up a press? In that situation, you give a formal warning. I can see where a coach, in this situation would instruct a play to throw the ball oob thinking that he would recieve a warning. I looked at this year's casebook quickly and didn't see this particular play mentioned, but I'd gladly rethink this if someone can tell me where it is.

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]

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!

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]

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.

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.

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 <b>interfering with the ball following a goal</b> should be <b>ignored</b> 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.

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?

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.

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, 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?

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

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.