If you do not see, it is only because you choose not to.

"Actionless contest" clearly describes the OP's situation. 10-20-30 seconds? Of both teams doing nothing except ignoring the live ball? Some of the infractions listed in 10-1-5 delay the game less than this.

The phrase "this includes the following and similar acts" – as you are well aware – indicates this is an open-ended list, not in any way restricted to the specific infractions on the list.

That "allowing the game to develop into an actionless contest" is included in the rules, along with traveling and fouls and all the other infractions, means it is most definitely something. The removal of the Lack of Sufficient Action rule did not rid the rules of any and all requirements for a team to play basketball.

You still haven't answered my question: "How long would you be willing to continue officiating 'nothing'?"

This is not as open ended as you might like. The "and similar acts" requires that the actions that you expand the list to include must be like one of those in the list. I can't see that this is anything like any of this listed items.

No, certainly not entirely open-ended. But neither does "includes the following and similar acts" exclude other acts that "allow the game to develop into an actionless contest."

I wonder if you started a count, just for the heck of it, would the offense pick it up, because they don't know why you are counting... :) I'm thinking I would give them a few seconds and then blow the whistle warn for delay both teams and start the throw in again.

I think without a doubt they would pick it up in a hurry. I think what they wouldn't know is why you weren't counting.

Assume the players are confused, blow the whistle, and resume with POI.

Not necessarily. Maybe their defense is better suited for sitting back in a 2-3. Maybe they WANT to pack it in because they WANT to have team A take an outside shot. Maybe the ball is between A1, A2 and A3. Maybe their coach is leery of a trick play and not allowing them out. Maybe, maybe....

That's why I gave a 55-45% onus on the offense...hafta be there.

I had that same thought.

My take on "similar acts" leads me to believe that there are 100's of ways to have an "actionless contest"...which would make the rule book a little thicker to try and include everything.

The point of rolling the ball w/o touching it is to keep the clock from starting. The ball is stopped, the play has served it's purpose, now it's up to A to play on or be warned (or T'd).....IMO.

I'm sure it'd be on youtube at 11.

:)

You could. But, as you said, you are basically right back to where you started. What if they do it again? Are you going to call a double technical again?

We're really getting into the realm of "don't want to go there" at this point. But "if a team refuses to play after being instructed to do so by any official"...

Like I said, nobody wants to go there.

Just a thought:

There seemed to be an interpetation years ago where Team B deflected the ball away from Team A and it ended up in the back court where neither team goes after it. The ruling was that the 10 second count would begin and after reaching 10, Team A has committed a violation.

So could one start a 10 second count in this situation?

You can start a 10 second count in the interp because there's still team control. In fact, a 10 second count should start. If, however, it's a rebounded try that ends up bouncing forever in the BC, there would be no 10 second count.

On the throwin scenario, you cannot start a 10 second count until TC has been established.

Once I posted this I remembered that under NFHS, there is no team control when a throw-in starts (unlike NCAA).