End of game delay warning

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

How can you interfere with the thrower's effort to make a throw-in if the thrower doesn't have the ball to make that throw-in?

A throw-in starts when the ball is at the disposal of the throwing team. Rule 4-42-3. A "thrower" is the player who attempts to make a throw-in. Rule 4-42-1. In case (A), the throw-in never started because the ball was never at the disposal of team B. You also never had a "thrower", by rule. And if the throw-in never started, how can anyone possibly interfere with that throw-in?

They're covering two different situations in the COMMENT....delaying the game before the throw-in and interfering with the thrower during the throw-in.

JR:

I understand your point but as Camron pointed out, the penalties for the TF are more that just givig the ball back to Team B for a throw-in. Grabbing the ball and heaving it into the stands is an act of unsportsmanlike conduct that is just too egregious (how did you like that word, ) to ignore. If A2 had grabbed the ball and rolled up toward the divisioin line, I would feel comfortable invoking the Casebook Play, but not heaving the ball into the stands.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. But if you were my partner and you were the administering official for the throw-in, I would support your decision to invoke the Casebook Play so we can get out of Dodge. And I will buy the first round of drinks at the post-game watering hole.

[Gimlet25id]

Just started reading this thread. I worked a game where a play similar to this happened. Here is the play it happened in a Holiday Championship VB game this year.

A Team HC calls his last T/O with 14 seconds left in the game. The A team was issued a DOG warning in the 3rd quarter for breaking the boundary plane. The A team is down 4 points. A1 has a sideline, tableside, F/C throw-in.

A1 passes to A2 who dribbles for a few seconds then passes to A3 who has a wide open 3 point shot opposite table. A3 shoots, made basket (A team down 1 point), as the ball is falling through the net, I was tableside and could see the clock in the background, there was 7 seconds on the clock.

The ball bounces twice when A4 picks up the ball and wraps his arms around the ball on the OOB side of the baseline while looking @ the Lead official. Lead said that when A4 picks up the ball that there was 5 seconds on the clock. A4 keeps looking @ L hoping for a whistle, doesn't get it so he bounces it toward Lead who ignores it, clock runs out. Game over. A team HC coach wasn't @ all happy that we didn't blow the DOG "T."

AD comes in after the game and wanted to know what happened? My partner shows him the COMMENT in the book. He says good job and that he will relay it to the HC which was his Coach.

Never thought I would see the play let alone hear that it happened again.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JR:

I understand your point but as Camron pointed out, the penalties for the TF are more that just givig the ball back to Team B for a throw-in. Grabbing the ball and heaving it into the stands is an act of unsportsmanlike conduct that is just too egregious (how did you like that word, ) to ignore. If A2 had grabbed the ball and rolled up toward the divisioin line, I would feel comfortable invoking the Casebook Play, but not heaving the ball into the stands.

Whether you agree with a ruling or not, that ruling should be followed. That case play couldn't be more specific. The player interfered with the ball following a goal with the purpose of stopping the clock. You and Camron are trying to attach degrees to that interference. It doesn't matter HOW he interfered with the ball; the only thing that matters is that he DID interfere with the ball. The player screwed his team by throwing the ball up in the stands. Just let time run out. Don't bail him out now by giving his team even the faintest possibility of benefiting from his act. That's the purpose and intent as outlined in the COMMENT.

You guys are ignoring a very explicit case play to make a call that is not supported by rule. That's wrong.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I doubt a change is coming here....there will always be some level of action that simply can't be ignored. The T, with 2 FTs and the ball at mid-court, is viewed as sufficiently just. Even if the team now must make a throwin and the other team "might" get the ball back.

It's not at all clear to me that that's really the intention of the rules committee. In fact, considering the "official" ruling on other situations where an infraction gives a clear advantage to the infractor, I think it's just bad writing. I know they can be inconsistent at times but this one seems a little too extreme to really see that there could be any legitimate behind the inconsistency.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Whether you agree with a ruling or not, that ruling should be followed. That case play couldn't be more specific. The player interfered with the ball following a goal with the purpose of stopping the clock. You and Camron are trying to attach degrees to that interference. It doesn't matter HOW he interfered with the ball; the only thing that matters is that he DID interfere with the ball. The player screwed his team by throwing the ball up in the stands. Just let time run out. Don't bail him out now by giving his team even the faintest possibility of benefiting from his act. That's the purpose and intent as outlined in the COMMENT.

You guys are ignoring a very explicit case play to make a call that is not supported by rule. That's wrong.

I'm looking at 10-3-7 . . . Delay the game by acts such as: a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.

The case/comment you reference is relevant to a delay of game situation which is either a delay warning (and possibly a team T) or is ignored in the closing seconds. It does not refer to situations covered by 10-3 which are a player technical.

The comment you cite refers to a time when the team delays or violates the throwin plane...not when they prevent the ball from being live at all.

[Jesse James]

Adding a twist, if the official lets the clock continue to run with the thrown ball in the stands, but now the offending team signals time-out (excessive) before time expires. Grant the TO?

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The case/comment you reference is relevant to a delay of game situation which is either a delay warning (and possibly a team T) or is ignored in the closing seconds. It does not refer to situations covered by 10-3 which are a player technical.

Uh...except that it's listed in the "delay of game" part of the book... hhmmm...

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Uh...except that it's listed in the "delay of game" part of the book... hhmmm...

Not exactly. It is not part of the "Delay of Game" set of rules. It is related, but not the same.

The delay of game in fractions are limited to the 4 specific situations and only 1 of the 4 sub-sections of the rule I quoted has anything to do with any of them.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not exactly. It is not part of the "Delay of Game" set of rules. It is related, but not the same.

Yup, it's just a very specific, completely unambiguous case play. No need to follow it.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not exactly. It is not part of the "Delay of Game" set of rules. It is related, but not the same.

The delay of game in fractions are limited to the 4 specific situations and only 1 of the 4 sub-sections of the rule I quoted has anything to do with any of them.

Fractions??? I'm lost, Camron... fractions? Huh??

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

True story.

Team B leads Team A 66-62 with under 10 seconds to play. B1 scores and B2 bats the ball into the stands with less than 5 seconds remaining. The official stops the clock and retrieves the ball. He administers the throw-in and fortunately, Team A is able to inbound the ball and run out the clock. Imagine the uproar if Team B been able to force a 5 count, get the ball back, and tie the game.

I think you mean Team A leads Team B.

Also, did the clock stop back then for NCAA? (lurking from baseball side, again...)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup, it's just a very specific, completely unambiguous case play. No need to follow it.

Exactly! I don't follow it in this situation for the same reason I don't call basket interference here. The case is clear and unambiguous and, at the very same time, is irrelevant. It doesn't fit the play being discussed.

It's about delay of game situations...reaching through the plane, interfering with the ball after a made basket such that it takes team A extra time to get the ball. It is not about player techicals or unsportsmanlike conduct....heaving the ball into the 10th row of the bleachers.

It has elements similar to the play being discussed, bit has one important difference; the calls being "ignored" in the last seconds of a game are violations. I believe this case, or other cases, also say that a T or intentional foul SHOULD be called if the defense not only reaches through the plane but make contact with the ball or thrower.

The call I'm saying needs to be called is a T. This is more similar to a foul that is an obvious textbook intentional foul that you don't call...with 6 seconds to go letting time run out. You call intentionals rather than let the defense escalate the contact....even if it does stop the clock.

We are not to ignore everything done with the purpose of stopping the clock...only violations (even if the violation is the 2nd Delay violation). We don't have any directive to ignore player technicals. The rules committees have consistently established that a T/intentional foul is a sufficient penalty when infractions are deliberate and intended to stop the clock for an advantage.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Also, did the clock stop back then for NCAA?

No.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

True story. Team B leads Team A 66-62 with under 10 seconds to play. B1 scores and B2 bats the ball into the stands with less than 5 seconds remaining. The official stops the clock and retrieves the ball. He administers the throw-in and fortunately, Team A is able to inbound the ball and run out the clock. Imagine the uproar if Team B been able to force a 5 count, get the ball back, and tie the game. The game was the 1985 NCAA Men's Division 1 National Championship game, in which Villanova beat Georgetown 66-64 in one of the greatest upsets in NCAA men's basketball championship history.

I believe that it was Patrick Ewing who batted the ball away. His great career has led to at least two NFHS rules, this one cited, and the undershirt rules. Ralph Sampson, Virginia, caused the NFHS to rule that a player can't put a hand on the backboard to gain an advantage. It was a New York Knick that led to the 0.3 second tap/shot rule. Allen Iverson made compression sleeves on the arms fashionable, and the NFHS dealt with that issue. Are there any other rules that were put in effect due to mainly one player.

[CoachJW]

Team A scores to cut their deficit to 1 point. Time is at about 4 seconds when the ball goes through the net. The officials are going to correctly follow the casebook comment and let the clock run out anyway, so Coach of Team A calls for timeout. He'll take the T, the chances of Team B making the FTs, and try to steal the half-court throw-in.

Do you whistle to kill the clock, knowing that he will benefit from it?