delay of game warning or not?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I apologize for joining this thread so late, BUT has I have said in a thread earlier this past Fall (and we all know the one), this is NOT a delay of game warning no matter what Dick Knox says. And I refuse to impose an incorrect rules interpretation no matter who makes the interpretation. The ball is at the disposable of Team B, start the five second throw-in count.


Quoting:

BktBallRef: When the ball is on the floor and B is making no effort to pick it up and inbound it, I begin my count.

When the ball is in the hands of a member of the throwing team and he doesn't step OOB, I begin my count.

When the ball is at the disposal and the throwing team bats the ball, I begin my count.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
And I refuse to impose an incorrect rules interpretation no matter who makes the interpretation.

So, does that mean you ignore interpretations from NFHS if you disagree with them?

And, if you do ignore ANY interpretation that you disagree with, does that mean all other officials get to decide which interpretations they agree with, and only enforce the ones they agree with?

Finally, no one is asking you to follow Mr. Knox's interpretation. But, he has as much credibility as you in these matters; probably more due to his time at NFHS. So, many of us will follow Mr. Knox's guidance.

In this matter I think his guidance is based on sound reasoning.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Slider

So, does that mean you ignore interpretations from NFHS if you disagree with them?

And, if you do ignore ANY interpretation that you disagree with, does that mean all other officials get to decide which interpretations they agree with, and only enforce the ones they agree with?

Finally, no one is asking you to follow Mr. Knox's interpretation. But, he has as much credibility as you in these matters; probably more due to his time at NFHS. So, many of us will follow Mr. Knox's guidance.

In this matter I think his guidance is based on sound reasoning.

Dick is wrong! I am sorry that he is wrong but it is a fact. Dick's interpretation of this rule cannot be defended by rule. As soon as I finish the letter that I started earlier in the school season on the orignal thread, I will mail it to both Mary Struckhoff and Dick. Every rules interpreter as well as two former members of the NFHS Rules Committee and one current member of the Rules Committee have agreed with my interpretation of the delay of game warning that has been discussed in this thread and the thread the was posted earlier this school year. Even Mary Struckhoff's intepretation was the same as mine. Remember, we cannot have different interpretations in different states. There can be only one correct interpretation and it has to be the same in every state.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
There can be only one correct interpretation and it has to be the same in every state.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that this is the state by state interpretation process:

The state interpreter makes a judgement on a request for a ruling from his state.

If the state interpreter feels the need, he/she asks NFHS for an interpretation.

The requests to NFHS may be answered by different people, so some states may get different NFHS interpretations for the same situation.

Bottom line you may have many different, but valid interpretations on a state by state basis (unless or until there is a Case Book play, Bulletin, or an official Interpretation posted by NFHS).

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Slider

I don't know if we should say that the ball is at her team's disposal.

We allow time outs in this situation by A,

Maybe you do - we don't. I a player on a team who is entitled to the ball in that situation slaps the ball, that player has had the opportunity to grab the ball and take it OOB for the throw-in but chose not to. That's my definition of "at the disposal."

IMO, the correct thing is the delay warning for interference, 10-1-5d.

As I stated earlier in this thread, a team cannot "interfere" with it's own opportunity, and I still haven't read any logical argument to contradict this.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett As I stated earlier in this thread, a team cannot "interfere" with it's own opportunity, and I still haven't read any logical argument to contradict this.

First, I should say that I have never ventured into the depths of the old threads in question.

Yet, I will try this anyway:

The ball is not at the thrower's disposal if it drops straight down from the basket. That is not near the endline as the rules require. Do you start your count when a player first picks the ball out of the basket?

So, when a player bats a ball from the basket after a goal, they never had the ball at their disposal.

Let's say you have terrible mechanics, and you like to throw the ball to the in-bounder from 6 feet away IB. A1 is waiting for the ball. You throw towards A1, but A2 purposely blocks your pass while standing 5 feet IB, the ball rolls across the floor, away from A1.

Do you start a 5 second count?

I'm guessing you would issue a T on A2 for interfering with your "pass", a delay of game T.

In this thread, we issue a warning for interfering with the ball after a goal; a T if they do it again.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Slider

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that this is the state by state interpretation process:

The state interpreter makes a judgement on a request for a ruling from his state.

If the state interpreter feels the need, he/she asks NFHS for an interpretation.

The requests to NFHS may be answered by different people, so some states may get different NFHS interpretations for the same situation.

Bottom line you may have many different, but valid interpretations on a state by state basis (unless or until there is a Case Book play, Bulletin, or an official Interpretation posted by NFHS). [/B][/QUOTE]Slider,I can't really correct you on the above.I'm just a little puzzled,though,why you would then insist in another response that the correct call has to be a warning followed by a T?That ruling was issued for North Carolina only by Dick Knox.It also covered a specific case where the team throwing the ball in didn't even attempt to make a legal throw-in.They just put the ball in play.In this case,they still have 5 seconds to make the throw-in.I really don't know if the first ruling would cover this case,too.In your own words above,it also wouldn't necessarily apply to Ohio for Mark T. DeNucci,or to Oregon for Mark Padgett-unless they've been instructed by their state to specifically call it that way.This rule has a grey area in it for most states.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 10th, 2002 at 04:13 PM]

[Slider]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
I'm just a little puzzled,though,why you would then insist in another response that the correct call has to be a warning followed by a T?

I don't think I insisted; I am trying to persuade people to view this as an opportunity for a warning--IMO, that is the way most consistent with the ways we handle other similar situations.

If someone shows me a shred of evidence that a ball 5 feet or more IB away from the endline is at disposal, I will change my mind.

Heck, if you can show me that any ball IB is at disposal, I will be impressed. A ball at disposal is live: You can't have a live ball on the floor, take it OOB, then make a throw-in.

[Edited by Slider on Feb 10th, 2002 at 06:00 PM]

[Mark Padgett]

Originally posted by Slider
If someone shows me a shred of evidence that a ball 5 feet or more IB away from the endline is at disposal, I will change my mind.

[Heck, if you can show me that a ball IB is at disposal, I will be impressed.]

[Edited by Slider on Feb 10th, 2002 at 05:05 PM]

In one of your responses above, you state "That is not near the endline as the rules require." Please state your rule(s) reference for this statement.

Now - as to the ball "being at the disposal" phrase, to use the logic implied in your post here, not considering the ball to be "at the disposal" due to its distance from the endline, then it would follow that if the ball just came out of the basket and it just lay there with no one touching it or picking it up, you would never start your 5 second count. You know that cannot be. There is a point when you have to rule that the player had the opportunity to take the ball OOB. As I stated before, if that player bats the ball instead, they have chosen not to take it OOB when they could have and the 5 second count should start at that point. And really, is there anyone out there who, after A1 picks up the ball to start taking it OOB would grant team B a timeout? Nobody I know.

As to your case where you are making a bounce pass to A1 to inbound (BTW - there are situations where bouncing the ball to him from 6 feet away is now perfectly proper mechanics) and A2 intentionally deflects your pass - I have never had this happen, but I would just start the 5 second count. I don't view this as the same as a player not promptly giving me the ball following a call with which they didn't like, which is the most common use of the delay technical. Not only that, but if you are bouncing the ball to the inbounder (I refuse to use the NF term "thrower-in" - it makes me want to "thrower-up"), you most probably have a spot throw-in. The delay warning system only applies to throw-ins following a score, so if you use the "A2 intentionally deflecting your pass" case you mentioned, unless it was for a throw-in following a score, you (if you used your rule about not starting the 5 second count, but considering it a delay) could not, by rule, issue a warning, but would either have a no call or a T.

[Oz Referee]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett

Bob - the word "interfering" is the key to me. The team entitled to the ball cannot "interfere" with the ball being put into play because when their player touches it, it is at their disposal. You cannot "interfere" with yourself. The term implies the ball was touched by the team not entitled to it because only they can "interfere" with a team's ability to put the ball promptly into play, which is the rule.

Mark - you can interfere with yourself - but the Pope says that you'll go blind

[Slider]

Originally posted by Mark Padgett
In one of your responses above, you state "That is not near the endline as the rules require." Please state your rule(s) reference for this statement.

Now - as to the ball "being at the disposal" phrase, to use the logic implied in your post here, not considering the ball to be "at the disposal" due to its distance from the endline, then it would follow that if the ball just came out of the basket and it just lay there with no one touching it or picking it up, you would never start your 5 second count. You know that cannot be.

The wording of 6.1.2B "Comment" says it is the throw-in teams responsibility to secure the ball if it is near the endline.

6.1.2B also has this juicy sentence, "If the covering official judges the ball to be at the thrower's disposal, he/she starts the count and the ball becomes live."

As, I added to my post above, it makes no sense to have a live ball IB on the court for a throw-in: Can the defense pick it up (it is past the plane)?

Now, if a team does ignore an IB ball (near the end-line), I will place the ball OOB and start counting. If it is an attempt to delay (say to run out the clock), I will T them for delay.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Earlier in this thread BktBallRef gave the criteria for starting the five second count for a throw-in. I will post them again:

Quoting:

BktBallRef: When the ball is on the floor and B is making no effort to pick it up and inbound it, I begin my count.

When the ball is in the hands of a member of the throwing team and he doesn't step OOB, I begin my count.

When the ball is at the disposal and the throwing team bats the ball, I begin my count.


In the play that started this thread, when B1 slapped the ball rather than grab it and take it out of bounds to start her team's throw-in, the ball became at the disposal of Team B. The covering official should start his five second count, if B1's slapping of the ball made it difficult for her or one of her teammates to recover the ball, too bad, and the official should not stop the clock to allow a player from Team B to recover the ball. B1 made a stupid decision and has to live with it. The official should not issue any type of delay of game warning because B1's action does not warrant it. B1 is only guilty of stupidity.


Addressing the ruling by one State Assn. as opposed to another State Assn. There can only be one interpretation for the whole country because the rule is the same for the whole country. I can tell you from personal experience, that there are state interpreters that have made incorrect interpretations because they did not know what the rule book said. One year, the MichiganHSAA interpreter said that a team could not substitute before the first free throw of a technical foul. He flat out told me that the rules said he was right and that I was wrong. It took emails by me to him and the NFHS Rules Editor to convince him.

This year when the NFHS posted the 2001-02 Basketball Rules Interpretations on the NFHS website, the Ruling for Situation 18 was incorrect, and when I emailed Mary Struckhoff and Dick Knox, they told me that the Ruling was correct and I was wrong. It took a second email to them telling them that the there was already a Casebook Play that contradicted the Ruling for Situation 18, before they agreed with me and corrected the Ruling.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Earlier in this thread ... [blah, blah, blah] ... and corrected the Ruling.

Did you make a salient, new point for this thread in all that?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Slider

The wording of 6.1.2B "Comment" says it is the throw-in teams responsibility to secure the ball if it is near the endline.

6.1.2B also has this juicy sentence, "If the covering official judges the ball to be at the thrower's disposal, he/she starts the count and the ball becomes live."

As, I added to my post above, it makes no sense to have a live ball IB on the court for a throw-in: Can the defense pick it up (it is past the plane)?

Now, if a team does ignore an IB ball (near the end-line), I will place the ball OOB and start counting. If it is an attempt to delay (say to run out the clock), I will T them for delay.

Slider,the last sentence of the "comment" that you are referencing states-"The covering official shall start his/her throw-in count when it is determined the ball is available".That's a very relevant statement.It goes hand-in-hand with your comments above.This casebook play is pretty clear.It states that you can have a live ball IB in this instance.The play should be called the way BBref stated.Btw,what rule allows you to T them for delay without warning them first-if you decided to go that route?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Feb 10th, 2002 at 08:36 PM]

[Slider]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
It states that you can have a live ball IB in this instance...Btw,what rule allows you to T them for delay without warning them first-if you decided to go that route?

I must be losing it, because I don't see IB mentioned anywhere in this case 6.1.2B

As for the delay T, that would be more along the lines of 10-1-5b (there is no warning for that).

But, all that is besides the point, how do you let the thrower touch a live ball IB, and then take it OOB, isn't that some kind of violation?

Also, say the ball goes through the bucket on B2's shot, A1 and B1 are near by. Official sees disposal, starts count, live ball, B1 beats A1 to ball and scores bucket, what is your call?