Call The T

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Interesting that you would call it based on an act delaying the game ...

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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

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.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by fullor30

They shot decent in the tourney because the collar was never tight. They've had zero experience all year in tight games with the exception of the Tenn. game which they lost, their average margin of victory was 18 points.

The failure to foul in the last 10 seconds was a real blunder. Put 'em on the line for two and you may have ball back with 3-4 seconds left. Poorly played. A much needed timeout would have helped, dejavu from the Tenn. game

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

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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

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.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by socalreff

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

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

In the literal sense, the official is delayed from whatever his next action is...reporting, 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 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?

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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.

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

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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?

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

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

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?

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

If you live in fear of what a 15 y/o kid is going to say to you, you should probably hang'em 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.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

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?

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.

[Adam]

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

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

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.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

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.

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 ) 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.

[JRutledge]

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