Backcourt Question

[Back In The Saddle]

Instruct A to "play ball". If they don't, I have a T for allowing the game to develop into an actionless contest.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Instruct A to "play ball". If they don't, I have a T for allowing the game to develop into an actionless contest.

Does A have bear more responsibility to prevent the game from developing into an actionless contest because they had the throw-in?

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Does A have bear more responsibility to prevent the game from developing into an actionless contest because they had the throw-in?

Since there is no team control on a throw-in, can't say A has any more responsibility than B. Also cannot see why A would gain any advantage by doing this. Also cannot see why B would be afraid, it's 5 on 4. Also cannot see this ever being done.....

[Back In The Saddle]

AFAIK, there are no exact "parameters" in the rule book for this situation. However, I believe the spirit and intent is that the offense must force the action. I offer as argument the following:

• The 10 second backcourt count, 10 second free throw count, 5 second throw-in count, and the 5 second closely guarded count. Each of which is designed to force the offense to "do something" to move the game along.
• There is no specific rule that forces the defense to advance the action.

However, NFHS 10-1-5, the "actionless contest" rule lists a goodly number of both offensive team and defensive team infractions. So it could just as effectively be argued that both teams have a responsibility to keep the game moving. You could warn them both, and potentially T them both.

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.

[Scrapper1]

What if the ball "accidentally" bounces off the official and goes out of bounds?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

What if the ball "accidentally" bounces off the official and goes out of bounds?

Actually, now that I've thought about it, it would be better if it accidentally bounced and hit a player. That way the clock would start.

[Back In The Saddle]

You could always combine the two. If it "accidentally" bounces off an official and then "accidentally" touched a player...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

What if the ball "accidentally" bounces off the official and goes out of bounds?

I had that same thought.

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

What if the ball "accidentally" bounces off the official and goes out of bounds?

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I had that same thought.

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

[doubleringer]

No action for 20 seconds? Declare the game a soccer game, end in a tie, and send everyone home with a medal, no matter if they participated in the game or not.

[ma_ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

AFAIK, there are no exact "parameters" in the rule book for this situation. However, I believe the spirit and intent is that the offense must force the action. I offer as argument the following:

• The 10 second backcourt count, 10 second free throw count, 5 second throw-in count, and the 5 second closely guarded count. Each of which is designed to force the offense to "do something" to move the game along.
• There is no specific rule that forces the defense to advance the action.

However, NFHS 10-1-5, the "actionless contest" rule lists a goodly number of both offensive team and defensive team infractions. So it could just as effectively be argued that both teams have a responsibility to keep the game moving. You could warn them both, and potentially T them both.

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.

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

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.

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.

[ma_ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

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?

[CoachP]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

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?

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.