End of Game Intentional Delay

[Spence]

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.

So the coach says to you "but the rule clearly says with 5 seconds or less" and we had 8 (or 20). Where's my delay warning?"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Spence

So the coach says to you "but the rule clearly says with 5 seconds or less" and we had 8 (or 20). Where's my delay warning?"

That's not a rule, it's a case play describing how they (NFHS) want this type of play called. The case play clearly says when it's done just to stop the clock in an end-of-game scenario, we're to ignore or T.

"Coach, you're getting your warning also."

[Spence]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's not a rule, it's a case play describing how they (NFHS) want this type of play called. The case play clearly says when it's done just to stop the clock in an end-of-game scenario, we're to ignore or T.

"Coach, you're getting your warning also."

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?

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Spence

So the coach says to you "but the rule clearly says with 5 seconds or less" and we had 8 (or 20). Where's my delay warning?"

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.

Team A leads by three points with four seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. Team A is to throw-in from a spot out of bounds on the endline. Players begin jockeying ....

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?

[deecee]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

All case plays mention specifics of a play that are not necessarily vital to the ruling.

Good point. Sometimes it's difficult for people to determine relevance: it's easy to read everything as relevant, since it's part of the case play.

The way out, it seems to me, is to return to the text of the rule. Cases are applications of rules. Anything included in the case that the rule fails to mention is merely adventitious.

In all of your examples, the pieces you mention do not appear in the text of the exemplified rule, and that explains why we should not read those elements back into the rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Good point. Sometimes it's difficult for people to determine relevance: it's easy to read everything as relevant, since it's part of the case play.

The way out, it seems to me, is to return to the text of the rule. Cases are applications of rules. Anything included in the case that the rule fails to mention is merely adventitious.

In all of your examples, the pieces you mention do not appear in the text of the exemplified rule, and that explains why we should not read those elements back into the rule.

Instead, I would read into the intent of the rule. Sometimes, case plays are designed to show the intent of the rule.

In the OP, the case play refers to 5 seconds or less remaining in the game; but the rule does not mention that at all.

The case play does, however, give great insight into the intent of the rule.

[lpneck]

This is NOT a case play. It is a COMMENT about a specific situation that CONTRADICTS the case play.

The time remaining is absolutely imperative to the play in question.

COMMENT: In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game...

The intent of this rule is to give the official a reason to NOT blow the whistle when the team that is leading the game is in a situation where they should not have to throw the ball in. If there are more than 5 seconds remaining in the game, then you have NO justification for calling a technical foul when a delay of game is the appropriate penalty. None. You are making it up if you think you do. The comment is clear- the threshold is 5 seconds while the clock is running.

Given the fact that the comment explicitly states that you are to ignore or T a throw-in plane violation with the clock running and five seconds or less remaining, but you believe you can expand it, what is your imaginary cutoff? 9 seconds? 20 seconds? 4 minutes?

Good luck explaining this situation to a supervisor if you want to start making up reasons to T players when there are other penalties in place to deal with their actions. In my area, the conversation would go something like this:

Assignor: "Why did you T a player for crossing the throw-in boundary when no warning had been given?"
Official: "I didn't think it was fair that they were trying to stop the clock- I felt a technical foul would teach them a lesson!"
Assignor: "How much time was remaining?"
Official: "About 8 seconds."
Assignor: "Are you open next Tuesday? I have a reserve 7th grade girls game I need filled."

[Spence]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Instead, I would read into the intent of the rule. Sometimes, case plays are designed to show the intent of the rule.

In the OP, the case play refers to 5 seconds or less remaining in the game; but the rule does not mention that at all.

The case play does, however, give great insight into the intent of the rule.

Snag -what if the losing team was coming out of a 30 second TO when the other team was getting ready to shoot a FT but they stayed in to the point of having to get a delay warning? Would you not give the warning since, in your mind, they are intentionally trying to gain an advantage (more info than can be given in a 30 second TO) and whack them with a T immediately?