you are fairly new here
 

Beachbum, you appear to be fairly new here....so I won't take you to the woodshed ;)....yes you are exactly correct we are to enforce the spirit of the rule. That is exactly what I propose, the spirit of the rule is to not allow someone to gain an advantage by using an "illegal" tactic. The letter of the rule is to enforce a delay, let them set up a defense, and also let them force B to inbound the ball because I stopped the clock, and it can't become live again until it comes in bounds.

The spirit of the rule, is to let them stand there holding the ball, and not start my count until there is less than 5 seconds left on a running clock.

The case play that has been quoted on this thread makes it clear. The last sentence gives the reason for their decision to ignore or T. Here it is again:

Now, if the rules committee doesn't want the defense to gain an advantage with this tactic with 5 seconds left; why in the world would they be okay with it when there's 6 seconds left?

I've been reading this forum for about three years. Great insight and help is available here for both coaches and officials (yes, I have served both the light and dark side).

I've come across this subject a few times in the past couple of years, and my teams used to employ this tactic, before it had been outlawed. My thoughts are that, with more than about six seconds, that this almost needs to be a technical foul. If the ball is available to B with more than five seconds, then they are required to attempt a throw-in, or be penalized with a violation. An action by A, even if there are no B players making an effort to retrieve the ball, that, by rule, will cause B to commit a violation, is a foul for conserving or consuming time illegally.

How long do we wait, after a successful goal, with an untouched ball, to judge that the ball is available to the thrower? My experience is, not usually more than one or two seconds. I don't think that we should be waiting any longer to start a throw-in count, just because B is ahead, and not providing a thrower-in. And, at that point, if A1 is standing there holding the ball, and B would be required to make a throw-in before time expires, then, in my judgement, I don't see an alternative to charging the technical.

Also, if Team A is saavy enough, they'll learn other ways to get that whistle. What I envision is A1 taking the ball after a successful basket, taking it OOB, then inbounding it him-/herself to A2 to "shoot a layup." This situation does have a specific casebook ruling, and does not have a time-remaining-based exclusion. Will we find ourselves disregarding that casebook situation, by using the spirit of the D.O.G. exclusion? Then, what happens if A1 decides that it is easier to intentionally (what would be termed flagrantly in live-ball action) foul B1 at mid-court with 8 seconds left?

:eek:

First off what you suggested at the end is a T....I guess that will stop the clock!!!!

Secondly you are advocating a T that by how the case is written is NOT supported by the rules.

Thirdly we do not have a "set" time limit as to when the ball should be deemed available to a team after a score for the throw in. Sometimes its 1 second and sometimes it could balloon to 10, but usually its about 1-3 seconds.

In this case scenario
 

A1 was down by five, they had just scored a basket which put them down by 3 and since they had no timeouts left, A3 picks up the ball clock shows 3.9 seconds and gives it the ole heave across the entire length of the court- the spirited discussion at our meeting was how to handle it and if as an association we could be consistent on the call in a delay under 5 seconds.

The rule was reviewed and further discussed. Some of the discussion centered around intent... in the OP the tactic was unsportsmanlike and therefore given the t. If it would have been a gentle tap to get the ball away from B - it could have been ignored. The coach clearly felt & made it known to the officials that it should have only been a warning.


A letter was sent to the AD based on the actions of the coach to the officials as they left the court. The coach responded with appreciation for pointing out the rule, but then also went on to say that he has used this "tactic" for years with no penalty, of course this was a non league game and that team was visiting for a holiday tournament.

With under 5 seconds to go, the rule is clear that the delay tactic can be ignored or penalized with a T with no warning.

Whats interesting is the very same arguements brought up in the meeting have all been made here as well.

Why can't the HS just adopt the collegiate rule and stop the clock after every made shot under 59.9. It would certainly close this supposed loophole.

kmw -- I dont see what this coach was *****ing about. what he did only left the officials with 2 options. Ignore it and let the game end or administer a T. In the OP you can call a T for unsportsmanlike but thats a bit of a reach here IMO. The only options you have in the OP are a DOG or a no whistle and let the time run.

In what you described you only can T or just let the clock run out. Who cares how long the coach had been using that tactic. All that shows is that he HAS been playing on borrowed time as he had been breaking the rules and it finally caught up with him. The past misapplication of rules has no bearing on the present and the correct application of rules.

In this case the coach should be slapped with a copy of the rule book and told to not come out of his room until he at least has read the first 2 pages, or purchased some goods from one of the advertisers.

I only intended to clarify what happened at the game that spence wrote about in the OP. The ball was given thrown from baseline to baseline - If a T is not given in this situation, the tactic by the coach continues.

And in your case I agree -- you have only 2 options -- T or let the game end. I would go with the T here.

Agree.
Disagree.
Agree.

So it makes a difference how far they throw it? I guess I can see that. I still disagree that DOG is ever an option with 8 seconds left in the game and the defending team trailing and just trying to stop the clock. The case couldn't be any clearer about the intent of the rule.

Even in the more specific play, I'm likely to let the game run out. But I sure as he11 ain't calling the DOG.

I'd be tempted to call that a T in the third quarter, to be honest. To me, that falls into unsportsmanlike behavior rather than DOG. Although they'll also get the DOG. :)

Found it:

Here's some food for thought on this. I just posted the case play for the intentional foul designed to prevent the clock from starting. I'm posting part of it again here to make a different point.

Now, for those who claim the "with 5 seconds or less" is the binding portion of the case play for the OP, would you claim that this case play only applies to throw-ins from the endline: that it excludes throw-ins from the sideline?

snaq - however this caseplay also mentions time less than 5 -- a coincidence???? who knows???

All case plays mention specifics of a play that are not necessarily vital to the ruling.
Example 1: 4.19.7A happens in the front court. Do we need another play showing the same ruling applies in the back court?
Example 2: Is 4.19.8B only applicable while the ball is being dribbled near the division line?
Example 3: Does 4.19.8D only apply on the first of a one-and-one free throw? Do we need another case play to show that the ruling is the same on the first of three shots?
Example 4: Does 4.19.8E only apply when the ball is in the front court?

I got these four without even turning the page, and there's more right there before I have to turn it.

Not really. It deals with several seconds left rather than, say, in the middle of the quarter or early in the game. Keep in mind the intent of the ruling.