End of Game Intentional Delay

[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"????

[Adam]

Originally Posted by beachbum

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"????

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:

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

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?

[dumbasabrick]

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?

[deecee]

Originally Posted by dumbasabrick

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?

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.

[kmw]

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.