You make a fairly good argument, except the problem comes with the 1st item in your list. Each of those scenarios involve player control of a live ball. This is different, in that no player has control. And one could argue that the offense has forced the action, because they were the team that inbounded the ball to begin with.

Sounds like one of those 8 yr old games where a team can't play defense in the backcourt, that may be why they wouldn't go after the ball...

1) The Lack of Sufficient Action Rule was deleted from the rules years ago.

2) Don Fowler, a mentor of mine and a member of the OhioHSAA Officials Hall of Fame, had the following philosophy: "You have nothing until you have something." In this case we have nothing. The T or C as the case may be should officiate the game just as he/she would always officiate the game. I might say loud enough for the players near the ball that the ball is Live, but that is far as I would go.

MTD, Sr.

I was responding in the context of ma_ref's original post, which I believed you were responding to as well. If I'm going to warn both head coaches, I'm not going to do it during a live ball.

I see. I was thinking that each team has equal responsibility to resume play, and the creative option is to go right to the OT, but only because it was tied.

US football codes have a rule that the ball is dead if it comes to rest, and possession is awarded to the receiving team. Maybe basketball needs a rule assigning greater responsibility to one team to complete the throw-in.

The rule about making a travesty of the game comes to mind! How long are you going to wait for the ball to stay live with no one doing anything??? When the ball comes to rest and everyone is just standing around, you are just going to sit there and watch them till you fall a sleep or what?

My point is not in the details of those rules, but the fact that they exist at all. And that there are no corollaries regarding the defense. Thus my reasoning for putting the burden on the offense in this unusual situation.

Yes, one could argue that the offense has forced the action. But the evidence seems overwhelmingly to the contrary. After 30 seconds, the throw-in has not ended, the clock has not started, and neither team is playing basketball.

Yep. And good riddance to it. But 10-1-5 remains. The "policy" has changed, but the underlying principle remains.

How long would you be willing to continue officiating "nothing"? ;)

I think you just made my point for me. Why are you going to punish the offense, when the defense has equally done nothing to push forward the spirit of competitive play?

(my) definition of Defense: to defend our goal; not to initiate.

Maybe defense is set in a way to defend for last shot?? I'm leaning 55% to 45% to warn the offense.

The hard part about playing chicken is knowing when to blink.

If you want to punish them both, I have no problem with that. But in my view, the greater responsibility for moving the game forward is on the offense. The offense initiates, the defense counters.

Like I said earlier, "Call me evil, but I'd rather single out the offense. Fair or not, they have the most to lose from a T. To me, that smells like motivation." In the OP's situation, I'm not particularly interested in fair, I'm interested in moving the game along. I'll get back to worrying about fair when somebody actually starts playing ball. ;)

Can't one issue double team technicals for 'Actionless Contest'?

Resume play at the POI, the throw-in?

I don't see why not. Although, I would want to give a warning first. And if you're going T both teams, obviously you need to warn both teams.

NFHS R10-S1-A5 says:

Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes
the following and similar acts:
a. When the clock is not running consuming a full minute through not
being ready when it is time to start either half.
b. Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly
live or from being put in play. See 7-5-1 and 8-1-2 for the
resumption-of-play procedure to use after a time-out or the
intermission between quarters. The procedure is used prior to
charging a technical foul in these specific situations.
c. Commit a violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane, as in
R9-S2-A10, after any team warning for delay.
d. Contact with the free thrower or a huddle of two or more players in
the lane by either team prior to a free throw following any team
warning for delay.
e. Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for
delay.
f. Not having the court ready for play following any time-out after
any team warning for delay.


Therefore, I ask you, what part of R10-S1-A5 would you apply? I do not see any infraction of R10-S1-A5. Once again, there is nothing unitl something happens. Eventually a player is going to get the idea that the ball is live and do something; hopefully that something will be legal (and therefore nothing) and not something illegal (and therefore something).

MTD, Sr.

Wouldn't defense include attempting to secure/steal the ball? And if it's out in the open just sitting there, why not take it?