End of game delay warning

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by CoachJW

High school game, everybody is out of timeouts. There have been no delay-of-game warnings issued. Team A is down by 4 with 5 seconds left in the 4th quarter. They have a baseline OB. They inbound and A1 makes a 3-pointer. Now Team A is down by 1 point, but the clock is at about 3 seconds when the ball goes through.

(A) as soon as it goes through the net, A2 grabs it and tosses it toward the bleachers.

Or...

(B) B1 grabs the ball and steps out of bounds. A4 is standing about 15 feet away from B1 and uses his arms to break the plane of the baseline.

Basically, Team A is desparately trying to get called for a delay of game. It's their only chance to stop the clock and make Team B inbound the ball one more time.

The NFHS case book (9.2.10) has a comment that officials are supposed to ignore this action. I presented this to a veteran official in our area, and he was surprised it was in there. He said he would probably still whistle and call the delay.

How many of you would ignore this tactic, as instructed in the case book? Would you treat (A) and (B) differently?

Thanks for your help, as a young varsity coach I appreciate the sharing of knowledge and experience on this board.

Play (A): This is both a TF charged to A2 for delay of game and a delay of game warning to Team A. I know that I could get out of Dodge if my partners and I do not say a word and just let the clock run out. But A2's act in this case is too blantant not to ignore.

Play (B): The Casebook Play is correct. That veteran official needs to do more studying of the rules and casebook plays. If he would issue the delay of game warning he would have to stop the clock and that is just what Team A wants. He would thereby rewarding Team A for their breaking of the rules, because Team B's throw-in for Team A's violation would be with the clock stopped, and the casebook play keeps Team A from gaining an advantage they are not entitled to under the rules.

MTD, Sr.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Play (A): This is both a TF charged to A2 for delay of game and a delay of game warning to Team A. I know that I could get out of Dodge if my partners and I do not say a word and just let the clock run out. But A2's act in this case is to blantant not to ignore.

Play (B): The Casebook Play is correct. That veteran official needs to do more studying of the rules and casebook plays. If he would issue the delay of game warning he would have to stop the clock and that is just what Team A wants. He would thereby rewarding Team A for their breaking of the rules, because Team B's throw-in for Team A's violation would be with the clock stopped, and the casebook play keeps Team A from gaining an advantage they are not entitled to under the rules.

MTD, Sr.

Huh?? Too blatant to ignore? So you're going to stop the clock, and give A a chance to benefit from their bad play? Ignoring the action and letting the c lock run out seems like a more fitting penalty, and it's prescribed by the Caseplay you cite.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

Huh?? Too blatant to ignore? So you're going to stop the clock, and give A a chance to benefit from their bad play? Ignoring the action and letting the c lock run out seems like a more fitting penalty, and it's prescribed by the Caseplay you cite.

you could be so stunned by the action that it takes you 5 seconds (or so) to blow the whistle and issue the T.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

you could be so stunned by the action that it takes you 5 seconds (or so) to blow the whistle and issue the T.

That's my story and I am sticking with it.

MTD, Sr.

[Camron Rust]

Agree with MTD on all counts

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Agree with MTD on all counts

A scores but is still behind by 1 with 4 seconds left. A retrieves the ball as it falls through the hoop and throws it into the stands. Right? That's basically the OP, right? So why give them the benefit of the possibility of winning for such a bad sportsmanship strategy? Especially when the caseplay specifically says not to?

[BLydic]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

A scores but is still behind by 1 with 4 seconds left. A retrieves the ball as it falls through the hoop and throws it into the stands. Right? That's basically the OP, right? So why give them the benefit of the possibility of winning for such a bad sportsmanship strategy? Especially when the caseplay specifically says not to?

As provided by Jurassic ...

Case Book Play 9.2.10:..A1 is out-of-bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the plane and knocks the ball out of A1's hands. team B has not been charged previously with for a throw-in plane violation.
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.
COMMENT:--In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or 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 should be called even though no previous warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic.

I would agree that throwing the ball in the stands interferes with the subsequent throw-in and is T worthy.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by BLydic

As provided by Jurassic ...

Case Book Play 9.2.10:..A1 is out-of-bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the plane and knocks the ball out of A1's hands. team B has not been charged previously with for a throw-in plane violation.
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.
COMMENT:--In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or 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 should be called even though no previous warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic.

I would agree that throwing the ball in the stands interferes with the subsequent throw-in and is T worthy.

The way I look at that statement is that if the team is attempting to make the throw-in, then you have to give the T. It's unclear in the OP whether the team was attempting to get the ball.

[Y2Koach]

This actually happened with my team this summer, tournament with Varsity officials. we make a shot to pull within 2, no timeouts left. My A1 that scored catches the ball as it comes through the net with about 4 seconds left. He pretends to throw the ball to B1 waiting out of bounds, but "misses" him by about 10 feet and sends the ball towards the doorway. Official calls a delay of game warning, clock stops at 2.4 seconds. With the clock stopped and a chance to set up, B1 throws the ball away out-of-bounds by half court, the ball is untouched by either team. We get the ball under our own basket, 2.4 left on the clock. We run the old screen-the-screener inbound play, but A1 breaks off the play and sprints to the corner. He is wide open for the 3pt shot, but pump fakes upon catching the ball. B1 jumps to block the shot and lands on A1 as he is shooting the 3pter. foul called as time expires, A1 makes all three free-throws to win the game.

As we are walking off the court, the official says to me "that delay of game was a smart play. did you teach him that?"

I respond "I remember reading that you're supposed to not call that and just let the clock run out, but we'll take the W"

officials says "why would we call something differently at the end of the game from what we would call in the beginning of the game? that's a point of emphasis"

I respond "I don't know, I just remember reading something like that, about the end of the game delay to stop the clock. look that up for me"

He actually did on of my games a week or so ago but I forgot to ask him if he looked it up. I know I did!

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by BLydic

As provided by Jurassic ...

Case Book Play 9.2.10:..A1 is out-of-bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the plane and knocks the ball out of A1's hands. team B has not been charged previously with for a throw-in plane violation.
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.
COMMENT:--In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or 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 should be called even though no previous warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic.

I would agree that throwing the ball in the stands interferes with the subsequent throw-in and is T worthy.

I see your point in terms of the wording of the case play and the comment. However, I have a feeling that this is another case where the NFHS hasn't considered carefully their words, and there'll be an editorial change in a year or two. After all, with 3 or 4 seconds left, even if a T is issued and the shots both fall, A will have an opportunity to benefit from the tactic. If the clock simply runs out, there is no reward for their bad sportsmanship. This seems to me like the "stepping out of bounds to stop an unobstructed fast break play". Officials are to simply ignore the violation, thus not allowing any benefit to accrue by a letter-of-the-law enforcement.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rainmaker

I see your point in terms of the wording of the case play and the comment. However, I have a feeling that this is another case where the NFHS hasn't considered carefully their words, and there'll be an editorial change in a year or two. After all, with 3 or 4 seconds left, even if a T is issued and the shots both fall, A will have an opportunity to benefit from the tactic. If the clock simply runs out, there is no reward for their bad sportsmanship. This seems to me like the "stepping out of bounds to stop an unobstructed fast break play". Officials are to simply ignore the violation, thus not allowing any benefit to accrue by a letter-of-the-law enforcement.

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.

Of course, the NCAA completely eliminated this by having a stopped clock after made baskets at the end of a game.

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BLydic

As provided by Jurassic ...

However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay should be called even though no previous warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic.

I would agree that throwing the ball in the stands interferes with the subsequent throw-in and is T worthy.

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.

[bob jenkins]

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.

That's my take on it. If B is (stupidly) attempting a throw-in, and then A reaches across and grabs the ball, then call the T. If B is letting the clock run out, then let the clock run out.

[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.