End of game sitch
 

Team A is down 4 points with less than 15 seconds on the game clock. A2 scores on a 3 point try... Team A is now down by 1. Team B delays in picking up the ball, the official begins his 5 second count. B1 sees the count, picks up the ball & tosses it to the official.
What would you do?

Any casebook play provided would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I don't have a casebook play, but I would probably use my hand to knock it back to him and continue the count..have done this before although not in the situation you describe at the end of the game...do you think it was intentional that B was delaying by throwing the ball to the official?

Beat me to it. I take my free hand and knock it down and continue with my count. Done it before and don't see any other way to deal with the situation. I don't try to knock it back though. I just knock it down so I don't accidentally knock it onto the court

-Josh

Thanks for the input. Honestly, I would just step back, let the ball go where it goes as I continue my count. But I'm really looking for a casebook play that says exactly what we should do.
It's got to be out there.


Thanks in advance!

This happens quite often at various points during games. I do my best to just jump out of the way of the ball and let it continue on its path with me continuing the count. After you do this once or twice in a game, it doesn't happen anymore. That's how kids learn. If a coach complains, remind him or her that it's their job to teach their kids the rules.

why would you think that? There's a finite set of rules and cases, but we need to cover an infinite number of possibilities.

Wishful thinking good sir.

Quick question that is similar to this one. At any point during the game, if the defensive team that just made the basket grabs the ball out of the basket and tosses it to me, I think that requires a delay of game? Any objections?

I object.

I second that objection.

What about 4-47-3?

I would probably not think it warranted a delay/T if they toss it to me (assuming that I'm the L (new T) and on the end line).

I guess it would be how one interprets "interfere".

Team A scores, as the ball goes though the basket it appears as though it will bounce on the court. But A1 passes it to the official before the bounce. Is that really interfering?

Same sitch but A1 taps the ball away from Team B & not towards an official. I think thats the intent of "interfere".

JMO

Right. Especially if the ball comes right through the net to the (former) offensive player, and ther are no defensive players quite ready to get the ball for a throw-in.

The play happens to me a couple of times a season and not once have I thought about a delay warning (in this type of play).

I see three options here.

1. Your option is a good one; letting it roll and continuing the count.

2. Bat it back to him and continue the count. Don't start it over.

3. Stop the clock and re-administer. This defeats B1's purpose and allows A to set up their defense.

Personally, I like all three but prefer #1.

I'm only calling this if they grab it away from the new offense. If the offense isn't close to it, then I'll just have a talk with the new defensive team; reminding them to leave it alone.

If, however, A1 is about to pick it up and start the throwin when B1 grabs it and throws it to me, I might have a D.O.G.

Completely agree. You can usually tell their intent. Most of the time they grab the ball and toss it to you as if they were like "here ya go" and turn around and run to the other end.

Like Bob, I've never thought of calling a delay in this type of situation.

Yes. I guess I just meant in a situation that the new offensive player was going for the ball and the defensive player grabbed it and threw it to me. Just enough time spent to set up a full court press?

I too, would just have a conversation with the offender next dead ball.

I don't believe you can just let the ball fly by when all the kid is wanting to do is check the ball to you. It makes you look like an idiot for not catching it, unless of course it is thrown toward the inbounds part of the court which would unlikely if you are where you are supposed to be (on the baseline).

I would treat this like a player in the lane for 2 1/2 seconds and is thrown the ball. You delay the count if he is making a move to the basket. if he passes off then you continue the count.

I would catch the ball throw it to the player and continue the count.

Just think to yourself, does the play, in fact, DELAY the game?

If the former offensive player grabs the ball with no one around it to throw it in and the new offensive team is not trying to push the ball i will not call it. If the player grabs it and throws it to me while the new offensive player was trying to grab the ball as well, then i have a Delay of game. Its all situational.

This is a play where the new inbounder is just staring at the ball, sees the official is counting, then picks it up and throws it towards the official. I'm not delaying anything.

At the end of a game, there's no way the player is throwing it to the official in my game. Either they've already tried it and I've dealt with it, or they've been doing it correctly all game and it's even more obvious that this is an attempt to cheat the system.

Best case scenario, I stop the clock and re-administer the throwin.

If I'm quick enough, I move and let it fly. B1 knows better.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[COLOR="rgb(0, 100, 0)"]I'm ok with this, it shows some common sense to the game.[/COLOR]


if you do this, you will just look like a fool especially when there is no doubt that the player is throwing it to you. Everybody will think "what the hell is he doing, the player is just trying to toss him the ball, what an idiot". I know you might not care about that but it makes the game look better when you don't look like you are trying to be a punk referee, trying to "teach the kid a lesson". Furthermore, what is less advantageous, you killing the play and re-administering or just catching and slapping the ball quickly to the player and continuing your count? The thought of just letting the ball fly by as it is knowingly being thrown to you baffles me????

That's because it doesn't fit within your "pro philosophy." :rolleyes:

The fool is the kid who is throwing the ball to the official when he should be making a throw-in. The official is NOT to handle the ball following a made goal. The kid is clearly trying to waste time. If you permit that, then you are contributing to the unfairness.

I'm with Snaqwells on this one.

no pro philosophy to it really.... just seems like an unprofessional way to handle the situation by showing up a KID or I would say make him look clueless but I would have to say it makes the official look more clueless than anything. I've never even seen a college official, or a HS official for that matter decline to catch and throw the ball back to the player, granted i'm a lot younger than you both so if you have seen it please let me know, besides you doing it yourself of course.

I don't really see much of an advantage gained here by doing this either and I don't believe gaining extra time to throw the ball in is relevant.

-It doesn't help the new offensive team if the new defensive team is pressing. It just gives the defense a chance to better set up their defensive press.

-If the defense isn't pressing... then what does it matter if he tosses it to you. He won't actually need that full extra 2 seconds it takes for him to toss the ball to you and you toss it right back.

But if you fill it is that pertinent, give the OFFENSIVE TEAM a Delay of Game. Weird and unusual... but if you think it is dead set necessary... by all means.

I've re-read this several times and if it comes off condescending i apologize as that is not my intent. just trying to get my point firmly placed.

Please Tone It Down ...
 

btaylor64: Why do you keep yelling out your signature? We can all hear you when you use your indoor voice.

ok i fixed it and that as small as it is going to get. its a quote that referees should live by!!!

Peace And Quiet, Again ...
 

Thanks.

Perhaps you didn't read the OP closely enough. Allow me to call your attention to why those couple of seconds are important here.

This is where your lack of knowledge of the NFHS rules hurts you. There is no provision allowing a delay of game warning in this situation. Not weird or unusual, just plain wrong. :(

It's obvious in this case why the player threw the ball to the official. To get a new 5 second count, and eat more time off the clock, thus allowing the the other team less opportunity to get the ball back and score. How do you not see this as an advantage; it's clearly an advantage not intended by the rules.

Your point is clear. I think you're wrong and I think you're missing the obvious advantage B1 is looking for in the OP.

BTW, I'm amending my 2nd option. Instead of bouncing it back to him, I might let it hit me and bounce straight down. The ref is part of the court. If I'm standing in bounds, it's a throwin and he better not touch it next.

B1 is an idiot on this play. No one will think I'm the idiot; everyone will know what the player was trying to do. How many times a season do you have a new offensive player throw you the ball after a made bucket?

I only see it in middle school and below; never at even the JV level. It's a bush league move, and I'm not going to be a party to it. If I do as you suggest and "suspend" my count, or worse, I'll look like a fool for falling for his little trick and giving them an extra 3 seconds (or more) to eat the clock up.

And please stop suggesting people give DOG warnings that are clearly not called for in the rules. The only good thing about that suggestion is that it would stop the clock, but you don't need a DOG warning for that.

In this situation, simply blow the whistle, stop the clock, recover the ball, and reset the throwin. :eek::D That will negate the advantage the player was attempting to gain by wasting time.

Yup, my third option. Personally, I'm okay with any of the following, plus what I'll call 2.5, letting it hit me and bouncing straight down while continuing my count.

1, 2, and 2.5 are likely to result in a 5 second violation. 3 is just as good.

It might just depend on how quickly I can think. If I catch it without thinking, I'll kill the clock. If I think quickly enough to get out of the way, even better.

If done that way, then what is the punishment to the attempted cheater? He is no worse off now than he was before. Perhaps he lost about two seconds which would have come off the clock before he executed an inbounds pass, but his team still has the ball. He basically got a free opportunity to gain an unfair advantage.

I like moving out of the way and letting the player's throw roll away while his five seconds expires. If there is any justice, a five second violation will occur and his team will lose possession.

The advantage they were seeking was to have more time run off the clock by having you delay the start of the 5 count...they were ahead. Stopping the clock kills the advantage they wanted. Now they only get the 1-2 seconds that have already come off the clock instead of the 5 they'd get by either dodging the ball or batting it back to them. They have to make the throwin now and the other team has a fair chance to steal it instead of being shorted a couple of seconds.

Right, you denied them the unfair advantage that they were seeking, but I asked you WHAT PUNISHMENT is there for the attempted cheating? Your answer is that we now have a situation that is fair. Does the team that just tried to cheat deserve a level situation at this point?

I still say that you are letting them off the hook. Handled your way, there is no real downside to the unsporting action. :(

If it's a 1 point game with under 15 seconds I'm thinking they are pressing and every second is valuable.
O's coach won't care if his team get's a D.O.G. so long as it's his first of the game so long as he escapes with a 1 point win.
This is an interesting stitch because it certainly could come up. I think I'm tapping the ball back to the thrower and continuing the count. There's going to be an upset coach if he loses the ball on a 5 second violation but on the other hand there's going to be an upset coach if we let extra seconds tick off the clock.

He's going to be upset at his player for throwing the ball to the official on this play when they haven't thrown it to you all game.

And if he's not, he's probably going to be smart enough about it here that he'll try to control himself with a one point lead.

At least he should be but you know how it goes sometimes.
I'm glad to have a chance to consider how to handle this stitch before the season starts.

Sure there is....they wanted 5+ seconds off the clock, and legally could get 5. By me blowing the whistle, they get 1-2 only. That's what they lose. Not a big punishment, but one nonetheless.

Seriously Mark? You are the last one I would expect to post this answer!

Why wouldn't you just catch the ball and toss it back to the player? Getting out of the way and continuing the count is just mean!

In the end of game situation posted, if I thought the player did it on purpose I might call a delay of game, put any time back on the clock, and start the inbound over.

(This should cause some good responses :))

Instinct, No Citations ...
 

I've just been sitting back here, reading others' posts, not wanting to take a stand on this obviously controversial, yet with little specific rule, or case situation, backing, issue, but I've decided to give it a shot.

I've had many, many, youth level games, where, especially at the beginning of the season, a confused player, after a made basket, will toss it to the official. I've just tossed it back. So, instinctively, I would probably do the same here.

That's my story, short and simple, and I'm sticking to it until the NFHS comes up with a rule, or case play, specific to this situation.

i've sat back on this issue just to see what more people would say and its good to see that common sense officiating is coming through in the end. I just try and picture an official moving out of the way of a dead ball that is clearly being tossed to him and it makes no practical sense to me...

I understand the value of time... trust me i do but i believe the fault for this time problem is placed on the NFHS. They should allow for the clock to stop under 1 min. in the last period so that this sitch under debate is not even a problem because now players, when taking the ball out with 6 or 7 seconds will toss the ball to the official and then doesn't have to throw the ball in. That cannot be put on us or the players. We are doing the right thing and the player is doing the smart thing in taking advantage of a hole in the rules.

Wrong again, Mr. Rules Guru. :(

There's no "hole" in the rules here, as there's no provision for a player tossing the ball to the official. At best, I'll bat it in their direction while continuing my count. If you catch it, start your count over, and keep the clock running, you've given them an advantage not intended by the rules.

If you give the D.O.G. warning, you've gone outside the rules, but at least you've addressed it and negated their advantage. There's no real "punishment," though.

Am I likely to get out of the way? Probably not. But I am more likely than not just to let it hit me and keep bouncing while my hand keeps swinging.

I understand he's not up to speed on all NFHS rules, but to miss a basic like this?

To be fair, the ball might be dead....if the player grabbed the ball as it fell through the net and tossed it to the official before stepping OOB for the throwin and in such a way (quickly) such that the official didn't yet consider it to be at the thrower's disposal.

Dead Or Alive ???
 

I believe that if the player has it in his hands, and has the ball under his control, it's a live ball, even if the player is still inbounds, before going out of bounds, but I can be easily convinced otherwise, in other words, I wouldn't bet my house on it.

Camron,
The OP was very clear and specific.

Do you think that the official didn't consider it to be at the disposal? :eek:

Consider yourself convinced otherwise. ;)

2006-07 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
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.

No, as Nevada points out, in the OP, the ball was clearly live. B1 clearly looked at the official and saw the count, then tossed it to the official.

I apologize for mispeaking, but it doesn't escape the point in what you are doing.


Someone said something about not going to catch the ball and start the count OVER. I never said start the count over i just said catch it and/or quickly bat it back to the player and CONTINUE the count from where you were. That, to me, is the best possible scenario. To do this shouldn't take any more than 1 sec.

Dead Or Alive ???
 

Good citation. Thank God I didn't bet my house on this.

But I still have some questions about this. Isn't it true that either team can call a time out when the ball is dead? And, doesn't the ball become live when it is at the disposal of B1? And, further, don't we start our five second count, by rule, when the ball is at the disposal of A1? In an extreme example, let's say that B1 doesn't pick up the ball that just went through the basket, possibly delaying to set up a press break, and he's waiting for his guards to get into position. Can't we say that the ball is at B1's disposal at that time, and start the count as he stands there looking at the ball that's on the floor?

In other words, does the actual rule state that Team A may request and be granted a time-out until the ensuing throw-in begins, or, as I believe, that Team A may request and be granted a time-out during the dead ball period immediately after a goal?

And another question that this brings to mind: By rule, do we start our count when the ball is at the disposal of A1, as I believe, or do we start our count when A1 steps out of bounds?

Either team may be granted a timeout during a deadball situation. Once the ball goes through the hoop, the ball is immediately dead until the ball is at the disposal of the thrower.

The count should start once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower. If they are horsing around (ie stalling), the count can definitely be started before the thrower has the ball out of bounds. The only restriction is that it must be at the disposal of the thrower to start. This concept is absolutely at the mercy of the official's judgment.

-Josh

You're right, you didn't say start the count over. I misspoke. :) You said to suspend it. Again, there's no "hole" in the rules here, but by your admission you would create one.

I have no problem with flipping it back to him; but I personally wouldn't hurry, nor would I suspend the count. Even suspending the count gives the new offense some of the illegal advantage they are seeking.

You can look up the rule wording yourself, but both of your options above mean the same thing.

We start our count when the ball is at the disposal of the inbounding team -- in a practiacl sense it's when they have the ball OOB facing the court or could reasonably be expected to do so.

Me, too.

Me, too.

I personally do not like changing the rules of the game, based on the amount of time in the game. Why should we change the game simply because we're under a minute? Is the 5 seconds between 00:59 and 00:54 of the fourth quarter any more valuable than the 5 seconds between 1:59 and 1:54; or than the last 5 seconds of the 2nd quarter?

There was a suggestion for a rule change in the last year or two about making the second foul in the last 2 minutes of the game automatically a 1-and-1, even if it was only the 3rd team foul of the half. I understand the rationale (the trailing team is just going to keep fouling until they hit 7 anyway), but I basically dislike changing the rules of the game based solely on the time remaining. It seems too arbitrary to me.

Was not commenting specifically on the OP...just on the possible inference that the ball couldn't, in general, be dead.

WWMD (What Would MTD, Sr. Do)? duck :D

MTD, Sr.

Maybe I should start saying, "Always listen to Mark DeNucci."