Delay of game ?
 

Fed rules. Visitors are on a little run to get back into game. They score again off a nice little pass and ensuing lay up. Kid who made the lay up has the ball drop in his lap and does the primal scream , slamming the ball down trick :eek: . Ball bounces almost to the roof. I come up with a delay of game warning. In hindsight any opinions on whether I should have or could have gone directly to a unsporting T ?

Unsporting T

I agree Unsporting T. Slam the ball hard enough to almost reach the roof and were shooting 2.

Sounds like a taunt to me. I think I have a T here.

To expand on this, would it be appropriate to also have a delay-of-game warning recorded (if one hasn’t already been issued) as well as giving the T?
I ask because my understanding is that if a defender reaches through the OOB vertical plane and smacks the ball out of the hands of the thrower-in during a throw-in that we give a T and record the delay as well (if one hasn’t already been given). So would we do the same type of thing here also?

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.:)

That is not my understanding of the violation of the inbound plane, I thought they are two different situations. Player reaches through and touches the ball, automatic T....but after that if a player just reached through I would record a warning, not go straight to the T.....

So in the example I would just hit them with the T...

Soooo who's right??:rolleyes:

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"?

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?

Yes, if you gave the "T" for delaying the game instead of unsporting behavior. Rationale is in case book play 9.2.10. If the "T" was for unsporting behavior, there's no rules backing to give a warning along with the "T".

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

So you may or may not have a delay depending on what your reasoning is for giving the T? In this case though, since you wouldn't normally go right to a T for delaying the game by catching the ball, do you really have a case for saying that the T was for delaying? Seems the better route to give the T for unsporting, no?

Is this the 2008 case book? 9.2.10 applies to the last second tactic?

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?

I've got just one T.

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...

Did you read the part of the COMMENT in 9.2.10 that said <b><i>"....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."</i></b> That applies to the whole game. The RULING of 9.2.10 also says <b><i>"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."</b></i>

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...

Ya think??

Give them the unsporting T and move on.

Seems to me you can justify a warning and a tech based on two separate events. By holding the ball once it "fell in his lap," he has committed a delay of game violation. By slamming it and imitating Howard Dean, he earns a T. Give them both if you want, you've got justification and a strong case, IMO.

At the very least, he gets an unsporting T for this crap.

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">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?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

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.