I'm calling it based on the violation of the rule cited. That's the way it's written. The context isn't really relevant to me.

Then I'll ask how did he delay the game? In order to violate the rule you cited it has to delay the game.

There was no failure to foul....they (Rose) did foul the dribbler, it just wasn't called.

In the literal sense, the official is delayed from whatever his next action is...reporting, making the ball live by throw in, whatever...while having to fetch a ball that the player spiked. That's part of the game.

In reality, I have to believe the Fed put this rule in to allow officials some latitude in addressing foolish behavior such as this.

If it's not called, it's not a foul. You're an official?

If the fed wants this foolish behavior addressed then why not add a rule: technical foul for slamming the ball to the floor during a dead ball.

Seems simple enough.

And if you're gonna T for delay on the play we're talking about... how often have you T'ed a player who walks with the ball back towards his bench during a timeout?

I like that. Removes any ambiguity...just look how long this thread has gotten discussing it.

Not yet...7 varsity seasons so far. Can't recall ever having that occur.

You've never had a player walk to the bench holding the ball at the start of a timeout? And if he did... you gonna T him up?

If a kid actually says it, tell him that when he gets to play in the NCAA championship game, it won't be called, but here and now, it is.

That's the same scenario I use when a coach thinks that he gets the ball upcourt after a timeout. I tell him that when he gets to coach in the NBA, he can inbound it there.

None come to mind...seems they just drop it where they're standing or toss it to the nearest official. Can't say how I'd react...if I thought he was intentionally trying to be a turd after asking for the ball, I might think about whacking him.

Truthfully, after all this debate...I may be inclined to think twice. Maybe my idea of sporting behavior is too narrow and idealistic. My philosophy has been once you've made it to the varsity level, act accordingly. Ball slamming is an emotional outburst...I just hate to see it.

Doesn't dropping it where they were standing also fit the definition you gave for the T?

I didn't give the definition, the Fed did. I'm just citing the rule I'd apply in this instance. fwiw, I don't view dropping a ball after a whistle the same as slamming it out of frustartion. I think most officials would distiniguish between the two and respond accordingly.

So, you've decided it should be a T and are finding a rule you can use to justify it.

Both are equal violations of the rule you cited - in neither instance did the player "immediately pass the ball to the nearer official."

I only continue this discussion to get to my point (which I should have gotten to much earlier :D) that in my opinion that rule is to be applied to an intentional act of delay - a time a player intentionally throws the ball away from an official or holds the ball to prevent it from being put back in play.

You can find a lot of rules to justify almost any T. That is the reason the rules are ambiguous in most situations. But a kid that barely bounced the ball 10 feet in the air is not a good reason to call a T. That is my opinion and I am sticking to it. I think a kid in frustration with themselves is OK. If he was upset with a call or the official or the ball went to the 10th row, then we got something. This particular play, the officials did a good job and left it alone.

Peace