What would you have done?

[ronny mulkey]

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.

[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,

[Adam]

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by ronny mulkey

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.

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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.

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.