Delay - Team Technical or Player Technical?

[BillyMac]

Team Technical or Player Technical?

Rule 4-47 A warning to a team for delay is an administrative procedure by an official which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the coach:
Article 1 For throw in violations, as in 9-2-10 (Opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw in boundary line plane until the ball has been released on the throw in pass).
Article 2 For huddle by either team and contact with the free thrower, as in 10-1-5c (Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest...contact with the free thrower or a huddle of two or more players by either team prior to a free throw).
Article 3 For interfering with the ball following a goal, as in 10-1-5d (Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest...interfering with the ball following a goal).
Article 4 For failure to have the court ready for play following any time out as in 10-1-5e (Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest...not having the court ready for play following any time out).
Rule 10-1-5c, 10-1-5d, and 10-1-5e refer to Team Technicals after any team warning for delay.

Rule 10-3-6 Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.
d. Repeated violations of the throw in, as in 9-2-10 (The opponents(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw in boundary line plane until the ball has been released on the throw in pass).
Rule 10-3-6 refers to a Player Technical after any team warning for delay.

After the delay warning to a team, is it a team technical or a player technical?
1) Article 1 (Boundary Line) - Player Technical (4-47-1, 9-2-10, 10-3-6d) seems to be the only possible outcome.
2) Article 2 (Huddle) - Team Technical (4-47-2, 10-1-5c) seems to be only possible outcome.
3) Article 3 (Interfering) - Team Technical (4-47-3, 10-1-5d) or Player Technical (4-47-3, 10-3-6a).
4) Article 4 (Court Ready) - Team Technical 4-47-4, 10-1-5e) seems to be the only possibility.

Article 1 seems to say that this act results in a Player Technical, which will impact the number of fouls that will count towards a player’s disqualification.

Article 3 seems to present two possible outcomes, one of which will impact the number of fouls that will count towards a player’s disqualification. Is Article 3 a Team Technical or a Player Technical?

[Nevadaref]

All four of the actions covered by the DOG warnings result in TEAM technical fouls and are not charged to any individual player and do NOT count towards the five fouls required for disqualification.

10-3-6 is for those actions which are not covered by the four provisions in 4-47.

The case book clarifies this.

10.1.5 SITUATION D: Immediately following a goal by A1, A3 slaps the ball away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in. RULING: The official shall sound his/her whistle and go to the table to have the scorer record a team warning for delay. The warning shall then be reported to the head coach of Team A. Any subsequent delay by Team A shall result in a technical foul charged to Team A. (4-47-3)

[Nevadaref]

An example of something covered by 10-3-6 is this:

10.3.6 SITUATION: The calling official has reported the foul and has given directions to players along the lane. The official is ready to put the ball at free thrower A1's disposal, but A1 is at the sideline talking to the coach. RULING: A technical foul for delay is charged to A1. No warning is authorized in this situation. (10-3-6c)

See the difference?

[Nevadaref]

I knew that someone else had just asked this same question!
Wrong way & Delay of Game

Do you have a study guide or review test that has something similar to his #100?

[BillyMac]

From Nevadaref: "All four of the actions covered by the DOG warnings result in TEAM technical fouls and are not charged to any individual player and do NOT count towards the five fouls required for disqualification. 10-3-6 is for those actions which are not covered by the four provisions in 4-47. The case book clarifies this. 10.1.5 SITUATION D: Immediately following a goal by A1, A3 slaps the ball away so that Team B is unable to make a quick throw-in. RULING: The official shall sound his/her whistle and go to the table to have the scorer record a team warning for delay. The warning shall then be reported to the head coach of Team A. Any subsequent delay by Team A shall result in a technical foul charged to Team A. (4-47-3)

Nevadaref: Thanks for your quick response and citations. One of your citations, 10.1.5 SITUATION D, was not very helpful because I'm more concerned with what happens after the warning, Team Technical or Player Technical, and your citation doesn't mention which specific "subsequent" delay, of the four possible, results in the Team Techical.

I agree with you that Article 3 (Interfering) should result in a Team Technical (Rule 4-47 A warning to a team for delay is an administrative procedure by an official which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the coach: Article 3 For interfering with the ball following a goal, as in 10-1-5d (Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest...interfering with the ball following a goal) because Article 3 also cites 10-1-5d, which is the section that deals with Team Technicals.

I'm not sure I agree with you regarding "All four of the actions covered by the DOG warnings result in TEAM technical fouls and are not charged to any individual player and do NOT count towards the five fouls required for disqualification", specifically regarding Article 1 (Rule 4-47 A warning to a team for delay is an administrative procedure by an official which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the coach: Article 1 For throw in violations, as in 9-2-10 (Opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw in boundary line plane until the ball has been released on the throw in pass)). Unlike the other Articles in Rule 4-47, this does not cite any additional rules. Also, Rule 10-3-6d specifically deals with this type of delay (Rule 10-3-6 Delay the game by acts such as: d. Repeated violations of the throw in, as in 9-2-10 (The opponents(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw in boundary line plane until the ball has been released on the throw in pass). This section of the rules, 10-3, deals with Player Technicals.

In summary, I agree with you that three of the four delays mentioned in 4-47 should result in Team Technicals after the warning, Article 2 (Huddle), Article 3 (Interfering), and Article 4 (Court Ready). I might disagree with you regarding Article 1 (Boundary Line Plane), which I believe should result in a Player Technical after the warning.

For those Forum members who think that this is a minor point because the penalty for all four delays is a Technical Foul, let me remind you that 4-47-1 will impact the number of fouls that will count towards a player’s disqualification.

Nevadaref: I look forward to your reply and any additional citations that your might provide. Hopefully other Forum members will offer their insight to this question.

[Nevadaref]

Ok, Billy, so I only need to convince you that it is a TEAM technical foul to break the throw-in boundary plane following an official DOG warning.

I refer you to 9-2-10 Penalty #2 "The second or additional violations will result in a technical foul assessed to the offending team. See 10-1-10 Penalty."

Here is 10-1-10 under the section heading TEAM TECHNICAL: "A team shall not:...following any team warning for delay, commit a violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane as in 9-2-10."

Please note that the penalty is different if the player who breaks the plane also contacts the ball. In that case a PLAYER technical foul is charged as well as a team warning for delay per 10-3-11 and 9-2-10 Penalty #3.

[BillyMac]

From Nevadaref: "9-2-10 Penalty #2 The second or additional violations will result in a technical foul assessed to the offending team. See 10-1-10 Penalty. 10-1-10 under the section heading TEAM TECHNICAL: A team shall not:...following any team warning for delay, commit a violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane as in 9-2-10."

Nevaderef: Perfect citation for this thread. Thanks so much.

I agree with you 100%, all four delay of game warnings are followed with a team technical foul, however why the following rule:

Rule 10-3-6 Delay the game by acts such as: d. Repeated violations of the throw in, as in 9-2-10 (The opponents(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw in boundary line plane until the ball has been released on the throw in pass). Rule 10-3-6 refers to a Player Technical after any team warning for delay.

This is the rule that confused me.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

however why the following rule:

Rule 10-3-6 Delay the game by acts such as: d. Repeated violations of the throw in, as in 9-2-10 (The opponents(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw in boundary line plane until the ball has been released on the throw in pass). Rule 10-3-6 refers to a Player Technical after any team warning for delay.

This is the rule that confused me.

Good question, and I wish that I had a good answer, but I don't.
I can only hazard a guess. Perhaps some of the vets who were around when this rule was developed and saw its evolution can chime in. Hey JR, MTD, BktBallRef, Bob J, etc. we need your expertise here.

My thought is that is that due to many editorial changes and even perhaps even some outright rule changes this one is a mess. It may well be a now unnecessary vestige from days gone by.
For example, the NFHS committee modified the language for all of 9-2 back in the 2005-06 rules book without comment or explanation.
How many alterations would it take before something that was clear and meshed with the other rules becomes garbled and confusing?

Right now, I can't come up with a scenario that would require the use of the current 10-3-6d.

I did ponder if the rule could be used against a player who is repeatedly reaching across the boundary plane or requesting to swap with the thrower BEFORE the ball becomes live -- in other words someone who is just being a general annoyance in this manner. However, due to the specific words "after the ball is at the thrower's disposal" in 9-2-9 and that the restriction in 9-2-10 is clearly intended to only apply during a live ball, I believe that 10-3-6a would be a better justification for issuing a penalty in such situations.

[Coach Bill]

Would any huddle before a free throw be an "automatic" delay of game warning or a T (if one was already issued)?

What if the players hustled down to the free throw line, huddled and broke the huddle before the ball was ready to be given to the free throw shooter? Would that be OK?

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Would any huddle before a free throw be an "automatic" delay of game warning or a T (if one was already issued)? (NO!!!)
What if the players hustled down to the free throw line, huddled and broke the huddle before the ball was ready to be given to the free throw shooter? Would that be OK?

(Yes)

[Adam]

IMO, a huddle prior to the first free throw is ok as long as everyone is in position before the lead is ready to bounce the ball.
If they actually huddle between shots, all bets are off.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

IMO, a huddle prior to the first free throw is ok as long as everyone is in position before the lead is ready to bounce the ball.
If they actually huddle between shots, all bets are off.

I agree with this. The key is really whether there is a delay. No delay = no warning/T.