Delay of game ?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Seems like the unsporting T is a singular event and is penalized as such. My gut tells me to not issue the delay warning for this event. That being said, seems like every time I go with my gut on these situations, it ends up being wrong...and that's why I keep coming back...to learn all that I don't know yet.

Grabbing the ball: delay warning.

Bouncing it to the ceiling: Unsporting T.

Penalize them both.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Grabbing the ball: delay warning.

Bouncing it to the ceiling: Unsporting T.

Penalize them both.

OP says the "ball dropped in his lap"(?) Is that really a "grab"?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

OP says the "ball dropped in his lap"(?) Is that really a "grab"?

The second he "grabs it out of his lap and slams it to the floor" it is.

[Vinski]

I’m not suggesting that the “primal screamer” violated the throw-in vertical plane rule in the OP. I’m suggesting that he caused the delay-of-game by not letting the other team quickly secure the ball to continue play, just like Chess Ref did do. But he also taunted with his over zealous act, thus deserving the T.
I only referenced the vertical plane violation as an example of the warning and a T being issued for the same act.

9.2.10 SITUATION: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1's hands. Team B has not been warned previously for a throw-in plane infraction. RULING: B1 is charged with a technical foul and it also results in the official having a team warning recorded and reported to the head coach.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Vinski

I’m not suggesting that the “primal screamer” violated the throw-in vertical plane rule in the OP. I’m suggesting that he caused the delay-of-game by not letting the other team quickly secure the ball to continue play, just like Chess Ref did do. But he also taunted with his over zealous act, thus deserving the T.
I only referenced the vertical plane violation as an example of the warning and a T being issued for the same act.

9.2.10 SITUATION: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1's hands. Team B has not been warned previously for a throw-in plane infraction. RULING: B1 is charged with a technical foul and it also results in the official having a team warning recorded and reported to the head coach.

9.2.10 casebook which is where that example comes from is for last second tactic though....9.2.10 rule book, there is no mention of a team warning also being recorded...so do you extrapolate the last second tactic example to the rest of the game in this case?

[JugglingReferee]

I've got just one T.

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by kbilla

9.2.10 casebook which is where that example comes from is for last second tactic though....9.2.10 rule book, there is no mention of a team warning also being recorded...so do you extrapolate the last second tactic example to the rest of the game in this case?

I think so. A rule is a rule is a rule. I don’t think the interp. is suggesting that you apply a rule sometime but not others based on time left in a game. I think it is saying that,” just because there is only a few seconds left in the game, don't disregard the warning”.

If an official were to not apply both the T and the warning when team A committed the violation in the middle of the second quarter, but then did apply both to team B with 15 seconds left in the game, you are going to have a very unhappy and unfairly treated team B. IMO

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Vinski

I think so. A rule is a rule is a rule. I don’t think the interp. is suggesting that you apply a rule sometime but not others based on time left in a game. I think it is saying that,” just because there is only a few seconds left in the game, don't disregard the warning”.

If an official were to not apply both the T and the warning when team A committed the violation in the middle of the second quarter, but then did apply both to team B with 15 seconds left in the game, you are going to have a very unhappy and unfairly treated team B. IMO

Interesting...I think I agree with that interpretation...as far as the original situation though, I think I still only have an unsporting T in that case...I'd say the scream itself is unsporting (did he delay before or after the scream?)...if he went out of his way to go grab the ball, then slammed it down I think there is a little more of a case for having a delay first and then an unsporting act, but since it fell into his lap it seems like it is all simulatneous...

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by kbilla

9.2.10 casebook which is where that example comes from is for last second tactic though....9.2.10 rule book, there is no mention of a team warning also being recorded...so do you extrapolate the last second tactic example to the rest of the game in this case?

Did you read the part of the COMMENT in 9.2.10 that said "....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 efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning has been issued." That applies to the whole game. The RULING of 9.2.10 also says "B1 is charged with a technical foul and it also results in the official having a team warning recorded and reported to the head coach."

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Did you read the part of the COMMENT in 9.2.10 that said "....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 efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning has been issued." That applies to the whole game.

The RULING of 9.2.10 also says "B1 is charged with a technical foul and it also results in the official having a team warning recorded and reported to the head coach."

But if in the second quarter B catches the ball as it comes through the net and flips it off to the side wouldn't that be considered "interfering with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in"? You wouldn't give a T there would you (assuming no prior warning)? That is what made me believe that this applied to only a last second tactic (besides the title of the casebook pla)...the idea being that you don't issue a warning in that case, b/c it benefits B by letting them stop the clock without penalty and set up their defense, etc....not saying you guys are wrong, but I think it could be spelled out a little more clearly...

[Nevadaref]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbilla
9.2.10 casebook which is where that example comes from is for last second tactic though....9.2.10 rule book, there is no mention of a team warning also being recorded...so do you extrapolate the last second tactic example to the rest of the game in this case?

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Did you read the part of the COMMENT in 9.2.10 that said "....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 efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning has been issued." That applies to the whole game. The RULING of 9.2.10 also says "B1 is charged with a technical foul and it also results in the official having a team warning recorded and reported to the head coach."

JR, what you wrote and I put in blue is not correct. This ruling only applies to a last second tactic. That is why the case book play bears that title.

[kbilla]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Grabbing the ball: delay warning.

Bouncing it to the ceiling: Unsporting T.

Penalize them both.

But he didn't "grab the ball" in the example, it says it "fell into his lap" which happens quite a bit...granted they usually just let it go in which case I wouldn't have a delay...seems like it could be a case of piling on, no?