End of Game Intentional Delay

[AKOFL]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's still most likely going to be an intentional foul because it'll be off ball designed solely to stop the clock.

If it was a dead ball foul, it's gonna be a technical.

Are all off ball foul intentional or just for the team trailing and trying to stop the clock? Rule please if any Not tryin to be smart.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AKOFL

Are all off ball foul intentional or just for the team trailing and trying to stop the clock? Rule please if any Not tryin to be smart.

It's just something to watch for. There is a rule, I believe, but I'll have to check when I get home.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Spence

If the rule is designed to prevent it "when its done just to stop the clock" why does the rule specify 5 seconds or less?

I'm telling you how I understand it. If it was meant for only 5 seconds or less, why did they specify "if it's done only to stop the clock."

Look, I see this as a clear application of spirit and intent. The case book makes it clear that the defense is not to gain an advantage by this tactic. Whether they do it at 5, 6, 7, or 8 seconds doesn't matter to me.

[beachbum]

I know I am fairly new, but..... I do not consider this an "illegal tactic" as stated buy someone earlier. Many times coaches use the rules to their advantage, but it wouldn't be considered illegal, it is just a violation of the rules that should be enforced,...as per the rule book. We should not make up our own rules to combat this.

I think that officials should follow the rules, and if that means stopping the clock for a delay or giving a T, then so be it. If the call benefits the "D", then so be it. When the rules makers realize the inequity of the rule, they will change it. Then we as officials enforce the NEW rule.

I'm sure someone will tell me the inequity of my thoughts!!!!!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by beachbum

I know I am fairly new, but..... I do not consider this an "illegal tactic" as stated buy someone earlier. Many times coaches use the rules to their advantage, but it wouldn't be considered illegal, it is just a violation of the rules that should be enforced,...as per the rule book. We should not make up our own rules to combat this.

I think that officials should follow the rules, and if that means stopping the clock for a delay or giving a T, then so be it. If the call benefits the "D", then so be it. When the rules makers realize the inequity of the rule, they will change it. Then we as officials enforce the NEW rule.

I'm sure someone will tell me the inequity of my thoughts!!!!!

They've already augmented the rule with the case play showing you that there are times the delay should either be ignored or done with a T.

Here is the relevant part of the case play:

In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I'm telling you how I understand it. If it was meant for only 5 seconds or less, why did they specify "if it's done only to stop the clock."

Look, I see this as a clear application of spirit and intent. The case book makes it clear that the defense is not to gain an advantage by this tactic. Whether they do it at 5, 6, 7, or 8 seconds doesn't matter to me.

To simplify, if this happens with less than 5 seconds, the offense will not have to put the ball in play at all. Therefore, the intentional delay by the defense, who we assume does not have a timeout or they would have called it, is the only way to keep the game alive. I would see if the situation resolves itself in a second or two, (B quickly recovers the batted ball, or takes it out of A's hands) and start the count then. If not, I see no choice but the delay warning.

Five seconds is the obvious breaking point on this call. If it happens with 8, or 12, or 6, it's a delay warning.

[Adam]

I disagree due to the stated intent of the rules, but I'm sure it doesn't make me a coward.

[beachbum]

If a coach is out of timeouts, but decides to use that as a way to stop the clock, we enforce the rule by awarding the time out, but giving a "T". this is not considered illegal, but a violation of the rules. the officials enforced the spirit of the rule. To ignore a coach asking for a time out, just to let the clock run because the official new it was a stragetic maneuver, would be a travesty.

So, a coach uses the delay of game as a method of stopping the clock...someone explain the difference between these two methods of manipulating the game. AND why we wouldn't enforce the spirit of the rule. Even if it benefits the "D"

[cmathews]

Originally Posted by A Pennsylvania Coach

What makes this tactic any more illegal than a team fouling when down by 2 and 20 seconds left?

first as someone stated above, the foul is an accepted practice....secondly, the foul carries a penalty whether it be free throws or getting closer to the bonus to make it a free throw contest on succeeding fouls...without a T there is no penalty for an act to clearly circumvent the rules, or use them to gain an advantage. I just won't start my count until the ball is at the disposal of the team entitled to the throw in, and if they want to stand there and hold the ball and watch the clock run out it is up to them. Should the coach start yelling delay delay etc., it will be similar to 3 seconds, and every time they disrupt my count I will have to start it over

[beachbum]

the question cmathews, is are you enforcing the rule, as per the rule book, or are you penalizing the "D" because of what you know they are doing?????

If they are causing a delay, then it is a "stop the clock and issue a warning", if you heard them discuss it in a huddle, then it is a "T". We are OFFICIALS, we are to enforce the spirit of the rule!!!!!!!!!!

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The case play is clear that this rule is not to be used to the advantage of the defense in a close game. Whether there's 5 or 8 seconds left, the advantage is the same. A smart offensive player can use up 8 seconds easily; count to 4 then throw a long high pass towards your basket.

Snaq -- I have to disagree with you here.

The case play is clear in the time in that it says "...running and five seconds or less..." -- and being the key word.

Both those have to be true. In the OP there were MORE than 5 seconds therefore this would just be a delay of game warning. I know what the intent of the rule was but if that were the committees intent then they shot themselves in the foot by adding the and modifier to the 2 conditions that MUST be met. I do not see how the T is supported by the rule as both conditions have not been met here.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

Snaq -- I have to disagree with you here.

That's okay, i can live with that. I'm sure you can as well.

BTW, I'm 99.99999% sure not to call the T. I'm just going to stand there and watch.

Maybe I'll wait until there are 5 seconds left to call the T.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's okay, i can live with that. I'm sure you can as well.

BTW, I'm 99.99999% sure not to call the T. I'm just going to stand there and watch.

Maybe I'll wait until there are 5 seconds left to call the T.

Snaq, I would probably take the approach you just laid out if any. But I dont want anyone reading here to think that this case play applies to any situation and the T is warranted just because it says that in the rule book. The T is only warranted when both conditions are met AND you feel that the player is impeding the other team from putting the ball in play.

But other than that I would do the same.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

Snaq, I would probably take the approach you just laid out if any. But I dont want anyone reading here to think that this case play applies to any situation and the T is warranted just because it says that in the rule book. The T is only warranted when both conditions are met AND you feel that the player is impeding the other team from putting the ball in play.

But other than that I would do the same.

And I disagree with this. I wouldn't want any one calling the D.O.G. warning here when I think it's clear the NFHS does not want the defense to be able to use this tactic for the purpose of stopping the clock.

Personally, I'm not at all likely to call the T. As has been said, A1 could throw the ball into the stands and I'm just gonna stand there.

[beachbum]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And I disagree with this. I wouldn't want any one calling the D.O.G. warning here when I think it's clear the NFHS does not want the defense to be able to use this tactic for the purpose of stopping the clock.

Personally, I'm not at all likely to call the T. As has been said, A1 could throw the ball into the stands and I'm just gonna stand there.

Why do you think, or what do you know, that you are sure it "is clear the NFHS does not want the defense to be able to take advantage of this tactic"????