Backcourt Question

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I guess I was trying to determine what rule allows you to re-do the throw-in.

If it's 2-3, then I think 2-3 could apply with going right to OT.

I do like the idea of the league figuring it out.

The whistle kills the play. The throw-in never ended. POI is the throw-in by A at the original spot. No 2-3 required.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The whistle kills the play. The throw-in never ended. POI is the throw-in by A at the original spot. No 2-3 required.

What rule or mechanic says we are to blow the whistle? Just asking.

[GoodKolbeMan]

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...

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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

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

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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"?

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

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'?"

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by ma_ref

I'd blow the whistle, warn both head coaches about preventing an actionless contest, then resume play with a throw-in from the previous spot by team A.

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

What rule or mechanic says we are to blow the whistle? Just asking.

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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.

[jritchie]

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?