What would you have done?

[Raymond]

How much time was left on the clock when the ball landed on the floor? Now that you have that answer, do you feel the ball was at the disposal of B1 at that point?

Separate question for forum: Say A1 purposedly crossed the plain to incur a delay of game warning with less than 5 seconds left on clock, wasn't/isn't there something in the rulebook that stated we should ignore the action and let the clock proceed?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Separate question for forum: Say A1 purposedly crossed the plain to incur a delay of game warning with less than 5 seconds left on clock, wasn't/isn't there something in the rulebook that stated we should ignore the action and let the clock proceed?

Yup, it's in the casebook.
If you're forced to make the call, ignore the D.O.G. warning and go straight to the T.

[ma_ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Separate question for forum: Say A1 purposedly crossed the plain to incur a delay of game warning with less than 5 seconds left on clock, wasn't/isn't there something in the rulebook that stated we should ignore the action and let the clock proceed?

Can't cite a specific rule number, but what I would do in both cases is hit A with the DOG technical. I'm not sure if we're obligated to give a team a warning for a DOG infraction, when clearly they are gaining an advantage by stopping the clock. This isn't team A accidentally crossing the boundary plane while trying to deflect an inbounds pass, or inadvertantly giving the ball a tap after it's gone through the basket.

[Adam]

Again, this is explicitly referenced in the case book. The proper procedure (the one the rules committee wants us to use) is to ignore the infraction unless it interferes with the attempt to inbound the ball. If it truly interferes, you are supposed to go straight to the T (and record the warning).

In this case, there is no attempt to inbound the ball, so the infraction should be ignored.

[SMEngmann]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Again, this is explicitly referenced in the case book. The proper procedure (the one the rules committee wants us to use) is to ignore the infraction unless it interferes with the attempt to inbound the ball. If it truly interferes, you are supposed to go straight to the T (and record the warning).

In this case, there is no attempt to inbound the ball, so the infraction should be ignored.

I agree with your interpretation of the rule, but disagree that the infraction should be ignored. According to the OP, A1 picked up the ball and threw it toward B. In this situation I think we have to have a technical foul as the act of picking up the ball and throwing it I don't think can be ignored, and it clearly interfere's with team A's efforts to make a throw in.

Additionally, in a gray area situation where there was 5.8 when the ball went through, I think that is the easiest sell because theoretically a 5 second violation is still in play. You call the T, there's no doubt or uncertainty as to what happened, it's clear a decision was made on the play that was obvious and in my opinion, it makes the situation much cleaner than just ignoring A1's actions and just running off the court.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by SMEngmann

I agree with your interpretation of the rule, but disagree that the infraction should be ignored. According to the OP, A1 picked up the ball and threw it toward B. In this situation I think we have to have a technical foul as the act of picking up the ball and throwing it I don't think can be ignored, and it clearly interfere's with team A's efforts to make a throw in.

If he picked it up and threw it 100 miles an hour, I could see a T, but I picture him tossing it in his opponent's direction, just as it might happen at any other time in the game without incident, so I go along with ignoring it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

Can't cite a specific rule number, but what I would do in both cases is hit A with the DOG technical. I'm not sure if we're obligated to give a team a warning for a DOG infraction, when clearly they are gaining an advantage by stopping the clock. This isn't team A accidentally crossing the boundary plane while trying to deflect an inbounds pass, or inadvertantly giving the ball a tap after it's gone through the basket.

Snaqs is right. Let the clock run. See case book play 9.2.10COMMENT.

[BillyMac]

2006-07 NFHS Casebook

9.2.11 Situation: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Team B has not been warned previously for a throw-in plane infraction.
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 its 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 shall 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. (4-47-1; 10-1-10)

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

2006-07 NFHS Casebook

9.2.11 Situation:

Note--9.2.11 in the 2006-07 case book is now 9.2.10 in the current case book, as cited above,