Backcourt Question
 

12 seconds left tie game:

Team A inbouding the ball and has to go the length of the court.
Team A rolls the ball in bounds and the ball comes to rest roughly five feet away from the mid court line. Team B is scared to go after the ball for whatever reason (foul etc etc) and Team A doesn't grab it either.

Ball sits there for 10-20-30 seconds. Do you have anything?

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?

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.....

Don't have my rule book in front of me, but seems to me like A has done their part by inbounding the ball. B has just as much right/responsibility for preventing an actionless contest for an unclaimed live ball as A does. 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. If both teams continue without action, then I'd blow my whistle, declare the game over (score still tied), and let the league administrators sort out how they want to continue the contest, if at all.

Would you not instead declare regulation time over and proceed tot he overtime session?

No, I wouldn't. First, I don't think there is any rule that allows us to do what you say. Secondly, Both teams had their chance to finish the game in legal fashion but chose not to. By declaring it over on the spot, the league can then decide whether to pick up where they left off (tie score, 12 seconds left, team A throw in), or they could just cancel the game entirely. We've done our part, let the league admins sort out this mess.

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.

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. ;)

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

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. :D

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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).

Despite that fact, you still can't start this count in an NCAA game.

9-10

An inbounds player (and his team) shall not be in continuous control of a
ball that is in his back court for 10 consecutive seconds.

Nevada, this seams to read that once the ball is in bounds, and team control is ongoing, the count should start. So, once the ball touches a player or the floor, should the count not start?

That's not my understanding.

Okay, I was just going by the wording of the rule you posted.

If the supervisors want it called differently, ok.

I'm going by the wording of the rule too.

Which inbounds player do you believe is in control of the ball in this situation?

The rule says "(and his team)," it's the same clause that makes it a violation, even though one player may only hold the ball for 3 or 4 seconds at a time, for the team to have the ball in the BC for 10 seconds. With team control already established, I'm unsure why the 10 seconds for the team doesn't start immediately upon the ball gaining inbounds status.

Unless it says somewhere that "player control" must be established first.

The inclusion of the word "inbounds" was specifically put there for this purpose.

A1 is the thrower. A1 is standing OOB adjacent to Team A's backcourt. A1 makes a throw-in pass to towards A2. (a) A2 deflects the ball to the floor in Team A's backcourt, (b) B2 touches the ball and it bounces on the floor in Team A's backcourt.
Should the ten second count be started?

The ball is inbounds, the team has control, what else is required by rule?

You know me, I'm trying to figure this out.

I believe that the problem stems from the team control foul rule that was put in back in 2002-03 and the adding of team control during a throw-in the following season 2003-04.
There was even a rule (4-64-5) that said the following: "The throw-in shall end when the passed ball is controlled by an inbounds player other than the thrower-in."

The whole idea was to avoid altering how the 10-second count worked. That particular rule disappeared rather quickly.
In fact, the wording of these rules has shifted so much since then that it is difficult to even discern the original meaning when looking at today's rules book. However, to my knowledge, the NCAA has never put out anything saying that the concept of the 10-second backcourt count has changed.

At the moment I don't know of anything that specifically instructs the official when to begin the 10-second count following a throw-in. Perhaps it is in the NCAA mechanics manual.

The best way that I can put it to you is to ask you how the inclusion of the word "inbounds" changes the application of the rule and why it is there. If it were removed would it make a difference to you?

Given that all areas out of bounds are neither FC nor BC, it makes sense that their intent is to have player control required prior to the beginning of the 10 second count. I think the rule does not say this, but I'm also confident that any official starting the count earlier than that is risking his/her status at whatever level they make this mistake.