|
|||
you are fairly new here
Quote:
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 officials lament, or the coaches excuses as it were: "I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you" |
|
|||
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? Last edited by dumbasabrick; Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 07:45pm. Reason: Poor grammar |
|
|||
Quote:
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 OS I trust |
|
|||
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.
__________________
in OS I trust |
|
|||
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.
Quote:
|
|
|||
And in your case I agree -- you have only 2 options -- T or let the game end. I would go with the T here.
__________________
in OS I trust |
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Agree.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
||||
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Twenty technicals in one game - all for delay of game! | Mark Padgett | Basketball | 14 | Wed Dec 26, 2007 12:55pm |
Delay of Game | chayce | Basketball | 5 | Tue Jan 10, 2006 01:25am |
Delay of Game | Redneck Ref | Basketball | 7 | Wed Mar 24, 2004 02:02am |
Intentional delay without warning | bkiledad | Basketball | 13 | Fri Jan 31, 2003 04:28pm |
Intentional delay of game | David Emerling | Softball | 12 | Sun Aug 11, 2002 02:52pm |