End of game delay warning
 

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.

A or B; I would treat the same Technical foul.

The official may be a veteran but he has one heckuva lot to learn.

The FED provided us with a very explicit and germane case play that tells us exactly what to do in both (A) and (B) above. Case plays are rules. Your veteran official is telling you he would ignore the rules. That's not a good idea in this situation.

The case play was put in to deal with certain plays where a team could gain an unfair advantage not intended by the delay rules. Iow, the FED closed the loophole.

Really? With no prior delay warnings? What about the case play cited in the OP that says to ignore those actions and let the clock run out?

Since I don't have the rule book, would you please cite the relevant case plays?

Without knowing them, I'd say T in case (A) and ignore the act in case (B). Tossing the ball toward the bleachers would be a T even at the first minute of the game, IMO. Breaking the plane 5 meters (sorry, 15 feet :)) away from the throw-in is just irrelevant: would you issue a warning during normal play? You probably wouldn't even see it.

On the other hand, I prefer the FIBA and NCAA rule: when the time is almost over, stop the clock after a basket.

Ciao

I agree with and support the Case Book 100% as ALL NFHS Officials should do. (If only judges followed the law...instead of making their own laws...)

If an official looks at Page 10 of the 07-08 NFHS Rule Book he/she can read that:

"Therefore, it is important to know the intent and purpose of a rule so that it may be intelligently applied in each play situation. A player or team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule. Neither should the play be permitted to develop which may lead to placing a player at a disadvantage not intended by the rule."


In the scenarios listed by the original post it would unfairly benefit the losing team stop the game. The casebook is clear and all officials should comply.

My 3 cents...

Yup let it run. "But you didn't delay the game, you just shot yourself in the packet. That's not illegal."

Just remember, though, that if it's the team that's ahead that throws the ball into the stands, that's not just a warning. We are entirely authorized to call this a T with no previous warning.

Here's a question, though: What if the person running the clock assumes you're going to call a T and stops the clock at 2.5 seconds? You stand there, counting, waiting, no horn. You look up, clock is stopped. What now?

<b>Case Book Play 9.2.10:</b>..<i>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.</i>
<b>RULING:</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.</i>
<b>COMMENT:</b>--<i>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>

You use your count as official information. Declare the game over when you hit 2.5 seconds on your count. Do not stop the clock to re-set....just continue counting.

Alright, I like that one. Another good reason to have a visible count the last few seconds of the game.

That's just like I thought. Do you agree that tossing away the ball should be penalized with a T?

Ciao

No not really!! I seen the case play. I didn't have my daily 3 mile run this morning before I posted.:p

No, obviously I agree with the case play. That tells us to ignore the tossing away of the ball and just let the clock run out.

As Rainmaker said, you only issue the "T" in cases where a team actually benefits by knocking the ball away, as in the case of the team that is ahead doing that. The team behind in the score will not benefit unless you actually do stop the clock.

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'd T him up if he tosses it INTO the bleachers!!:D

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.

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.

Agree with MTD on all counts

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

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?

Sweet Ed Pinckney!! God, I loved that game...won me some money from my college roommates on that one!!

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.

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.

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!

Why is the case book play correct for play (B) but not for play (A)?:confused:

In play (A), A2 interfered with the ball as soon as it went through the net. The <b>COMMENT</b> explicitly says <i>"In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or <b>INTERFERING WITH THE BALL FOLLOWING A GOAL SHOULD BE IGNORED IF IT"S ONLY PURPOSE IS TO STOP THE CLOCK</b>"</i>. What part of that didn't you understand?

This veteran official(you) needs to do more studying of the rules and casebook plays imo. If you issue the technical foul, you stop the clock. If team B throws away the subsequent throw-in after the FT's, you've given team A a chance to tie or win, depending on how many of the FT's for the "T" that B made. Iow, you've put team A in a position of possibly gaining an advantage that they're not entitled to under the specific instructions of the case book play.

That doesn't make any sense at all to me, Mark. You're deliberately ignoring the very specific instructions of the case book play.

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.

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?:confused:

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?:confused:

They're covering two different situations in the <b>COMMENT</b>....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.

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

MTD, 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, :D ) 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.

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.;)

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 <b>HOW</b> he interfered with the ball; the only thing that matters is that he <B>DID</b> 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 <b>COMMENT</b>.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Fractions??? I'm lost, Camron... fractions? Huh??:confused: :eek:

I think you mean Team A leads Team B.

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

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.

No.

One Player, Or, One Play .....
 

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.

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?

If I hear it, then yes. If Team A scores late in the game, the coach is right behind me if I'm the T or C. How can I justify to my assignor/conference commissioner that I did not hear someone 3 feet away say "Timeout"?

I don't see how the casebook comment could be stretched to include timeouts.