What would you have done?
 

Team A is down by 3 and has the ball under 10 seconds. Team A has no timeouts. A1 drives to basket and makes the basket at 5.8. The ball falls to floor and just sits there. B1 is out of bounds but makes no attempt to pick up the ball. At 3.0 A2 picks up the ball and tosses it to B1 and he makes no attempt to catch it and it rolls off him and back onto the court?

Even though the clock was under 5.0 would you be counting at all? Would you have stopped play when A2 tossed B1 the ball? Would you have T'd A2 when the ball rolled back on the court?

We chose to let the clock run out without stopping play. We had an evaluator come in and tell us that we had to stop play - no T, just kill the play. I pointed out that was exactly what Team A was hoping for.

Appreciate any comments on this.

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?

The only thing I would have done is start my count once B had a reasonable time to get the ball OOB for a throw-in. B is entitled to use the entire 5 seconds with the clock running.

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.

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.

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.

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

Ignored ...
 

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)

Ronny,
You have to be fair to the scoring team. You cannot allow the throwing team to run the clock out by just standing there for MORE than the allotted five seconds. In a situation such as this it is imperative that the covering official check the clock and begin the 5-second throw-in count as soon as the ball is at the disposal of the throwing team.

It sounds like he checked the clock, and it was 5.8. But unless you're willing to deem the ball at B's disposal less than .8 seconds after it falls through the basket, we've got game over.

In a normal situation (without the time considerations in the OP) I routinely give the throwing team a couple of seconds, occassionally more, to collect the ball and step OOB with it. Then my five second count begins. Only if they're obviously delaying (or being clueless or lazy), which will not be apparent until considerably more than .8 seconds has elapsed with no attempt to secure the ball, will I start my count before they've stepped OOB with it.

So, if in a normal situation there's no way I would finish a five count less than 5.8 after a made basket, I don't see how I could possibly justify rushing to start a count merely because the team behind is running out of time.

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.

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.

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

Not sure where you're going with this.

The allotted 5 seconds does not begin when the ball falls through the basket.

What B did was within the rules. Game over, go home.

Nevada,

Well, we want to be fair to both teams, don't we? If B1 had caught A2's toss, he would have just stood there and let time run out. Instead, he threw his hands wide and let the ball just lie there. All of this play was under 5 seconds. My real question is would have called a tech or just let clock run out.

An additional question is what would have said to the evaluator?

I agree Dan. I'm just saying that as arbiters of The Game (note the capital T and capital G) we have to ensure fairness. We need to be mindful of a team trying to purposely delay for MORE THAN they are allotted. If that wasn't the case here, then game over. No problem. However, we should certainly be on the look-out for it.
Personally, I check the clock when the ball goes through and am looking for a time-out from the trailing team, but in this case they didn't have one, so that wasn't as important.
I also check the clock AGAIN as I start my 5-second count. That way if there is a violation, I know how much time to put back up or if the inbounding team can legally run it all the way out. Perhaps that is my best bit of advice for the OP.

B1 is under no obligation to catch the ball. As long as the administering official is counting, then I have no problem with what took place. The ball is certainly at the disposal of a player from the throwing team. A2 ensured that. I also have no issue with the action of A2. He was NOT delaying the throw-in, rather he was attempting to speed it up.
Sounds like this was a good play by both players.

I would tell the evaluator that the count was started as soon as the ball was at the disposal and that the clock ran out before a 5-second violation occurred. I would NOT stop the clock to retrieve the ball. That would provide the defending team an unfair advantage. If the throwing team didn't wish to go get it, that's fine, but I would darn sure be counting and would definitely penalize them IF the violation occurred prior to time expiring.

Sounds like you did well to me. :)

Agree...

I have one girl assigned for all throw ins. And she is normally Ft line/ top of the key area..takes her 1-2 seconds to get down there and get the ball anyways...

I would have nodded my head and acknowledged that the evaluator was right, then if the situation came up in a game again, I'd do the same thing and let the clock run out.

A very good point. The player nearest the ball after a made basket does not necessarily always throw in the ball, nor are they required to by rule. After a basket, they may take off down the court to get ready to set up for a specific play. If I see somebody making an effort to get to the ball, I'll hold hold my 5 count until they get to the ball. But if nobody is coming to get it, or a player is walking lazily to get in place for the throw in, I'll start my visible count. Generally when coaches see me doing the 5 count, they'll scream at their player to hurry up and get the ball in play. I've never had a problem with a coach telling me I've not given their team a reasonable amount of time to put the ball in play.

In the original situation, the game could very well end after a made basket, even with 6.0 or 6.5+ on the clock, because of this fact. Team B does not have to hurry and run full strength to get back and put the ball in play, but they do have to make a reasonable effort, which realistically could take 1-2+ seconds as mentioned above, and therefore could run the clock out without them ever inbounding the ball. If this were really that big of an issue, then NFHS should adopt the NCAA rule and stop the clock after a made basket with under 1 minute to play in the game.

What if B1 was standing at the FT line? do you then consider him to have the ball at his disposal for the throw-in?

I don't.

Did I say that I did, Dan? So stop adding little twists to the plays and then providing your sanctimonious answers to questions which no one asked.

The NFHS gave us quality guidance on this in a recent Interp. That's what I follow.

SITUATION 9: With less than one minute to play in the fourth quarter, Team A scores a field goal to tie the game. B1, standing under the basket after the score, secures the ball and begins heading to the end line for the ensuing throw-in. A1 requests and is granted a time-out. RULING: Legal procedure. Team A may request and be granted a time-out until the ensuing throw-in begins. The throw-in does not begin until B1 has the ball at his/her disposal and the official has begun the five-second count.

That may be practical and politically wise, but it's still spineless.

The reason that the NCAA adopted the clock stopping rule is precisely because officials such as yourself were failing to properly begin the 5 second count and teams were abusing the situation. Why are you giving the inbounding team an extra 1-2+ seconds to organize for the throw-in. The rule says to start the count when the ball is available to any member of the throwing team. If the ball is on the floor directly under the basket, then that requirement has been met.

Hmmmmmm...this should be interesting. :D

http://www.csicop.org/si/9204/popcorn.gif

I'm not giving them an extra 1-2+ seconds to organize, rather I'm simply giving them a chance to retrieve the ball if they're making an effort to get to it. If they're making an attempt to simply get back and put the ball in play, how is that abusing the rule?

Here's a situation for you: Team A has the ball in their front court and is passing it around. B1 gets a good read on a pass from A1 to A2, and makes a steal while the ball is in mid-air. B1 goes the length of the court and makes an uncontested layup. After the ball goes through the hoop, the ball either bounces and remains directly under the basket, or B1 prevents the ball from bouncing away and places the ball on the floor under the basket. A member from team A is racing back to make the throw in, but let's say it takes them 3 seconds to get to the ball and pick it up, and another second or so to get completely OOB to make the throw in. By your statements, your 5 second count would already be at 4 at this point? Please tell me that's not the case...

As the new Trail my count would start when I got down to the end line. If I can get down there, then so can the nonscoring team. It's not my fault that they were caught out of position. The ball is there and clearly at their disposal. Yes, I'm counting.

Are you so uncomfortable with your rules knowledge that you can't handle "little twists" on plays without going Hillary on us?

Someone check Nevada's diaper, he's a little pissy today.

Hmmmmmm.......barely adequate, if that, imo.

Personally, I'd have told him that I'd rip off his head and then crap down his neck.

But that's just me.......

He better watch it or I'll pull out his last remaining hair. Yes, the very last one. :p

Don't bother me now, I'm trying to prove that 54-23 does not equal 20 regardless of where the calculation is made.

I need it for a paper I'm presenting at MIT in a couple of weeks.

Pull this.

(that any better JR?)

This isn't what you said earlier. You said your count starts when the ball is available, and had nothing to do with your position relative to the end line. Just because you got down there quickly does not necessarily mean the other team can, too. As the trail/new-lead, we are already closer to the mid-court area than the team that had the ball stolen. As an official, we must keep up with the player that stole the ball to get the best possible view in case a violation occurs, so naturally we are closer to the end line than any player from the new throw-in team.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the what it means for the ball to be at the disposal of a player/team, because I totally disagree with you on this. You're penalizing the new throw-in team for making a concerted effort to put the ball back in play in a timely fashion, which is nothing less than what they're supposed to do, and that goes against the principles we're supposed to adhere to as officials. There's no abuse of the rules here at all.

For all of the Ph.D's that are short a case of diet coke?

I heard a Ph.D. from MIT can drink a 45 minute coke in 30 minutes.

1. You either don't know what the rule is or you don't like it and elect to enforce it your own way.

2. As Trail I don't hang back near the division line. If you do, then you are out of position.

3. You missed my point about an official being able to run down the court quickly to be in position. I wasn't stating that instead of the disposal rule. I was refuting your statement that a team needs 3 seconds to get back there. Most 17 year-old players are faster than most officials. If an official can keep up with the scoring player, then so can a player from the defending team. By the time the ball passes through the basket and hits the floor, I'm at the end line in 99% of the cases. I'm certainly not giving the nonscoring team 2-3 extra seconds to cover the distance of half the court and inbound the ball. That's not necessary or correct BY RULE.

4. As I wrote before officials like you are the very reason that the NCAA adopted the stopping of the clock in the final minute. Teams were being allowed to unfairly run out the clock.

What no accompanying picture? :D

No! No picture for you today!

http://www.localseoguide.com/wp-cont..._soup_nazi.jpg

Try it in base 1.876. I think that might work out...

If you insist.....

http://www.forumspile.com/Win-Assclown.jpg

1. I know what the rule is. We start our count when the ball is at the disposal of the team, and our disagreement comes as to how we define disposal. Unless I'm mistaken, NFHS rules do not spell out what disposal means, and that leaves it up to us officials to make our own interpretation. If I'm wrong, then please cite the rule # where this is defined.

2. I did not say that as the T we hang back near the division line. I merely said that we're closer to it than most players.

3. By rule, I think we're talking about the definition of "disposal" again.

4. "Officials like me"...well it's nice to know Ive got some influence at the collegiate level.

Subtle. I like it.

(he's certainly working hard to earn it this thread aint he... :rolleyes: )

Huh? The interp makes it very clear that even though the ball is available to the throwing team immediately after the made basket, it is not at their disposal even after B1 has "secure[d] the ball and [is] heading to the end line." Otherwise the time out would not be allowed.

So if, by official interpretation, the ball isn't at B's disposal even after B1 has "secure[d] the ball and [is] heading to the end line," why would the official have a count? This interp contradicts the point you seem to be making. Ergo, "if the ball is on the floor directly under the basket," the requirement has not, in fact, been met. :confused:

I saw a similar play Fri. in HS Tourney game
 

Team A was out of time outs and made a basket with 5.2 seconds left to trail by 2 points. A player on team A hit the ball when it went thru the basket it went high in the air and hit off the back wall. One of the refs blew his whistle and stopped play with 2.2 seconds left(the game is basically over because team B doesn't even have to throw the ball in play as time is going to run out) ( I think a delay of game technical should of been called or just let the clock run out) Now the fun begins because when team B throws the ball in play after the clock was stopped and threw it away on the sideline with no one touching the ball. Now team A gets the ball under their own basket with 2.2 seconds to go with a chance to tie or win the game. Team A throws the ball in and gets off a 3 point shot that misses and Team B escapes. If that 3 point shot had of went in I bet World War 3 would of started.