End of Game Intentional Delay
 

We had a long debate yesterday at our association meeting about the end of game tactic used to stop the clock.

Team A is down and scores a basket with , say, 8 seconds remaining in the game. There have been no delay warnings prior to this basket. A1 grabs the ball as it comes through the net and holds it. Do you whistle and give a delay warning?

What if prior to this play you heard the head coach of Team A instruct his players to do this or if he yelled to bat the ball away? Does that change how you would call it?

You would think during an association meeting, someone would be able to open their case book and pull up the case play.

Case play says you are to hold the whistle unless the delay tactic actually interferes with an attempt to inbound the ball. In that case, you go straight to the T.

My books are at home, so I can't quote the case play number, but I'm sure someone will be along to help.

Boundary-plane warning – last second tactic
 

9.2.10 SITUATION: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Team B has not been warned previously for a throw-in plane infraction. RULING: B1 is charged with a technical foul and it also results in the official having a team warning recorded and reported to the head coach. COMMENT: In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower’s efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic. (4-47-1; 10-1-5c)

9.2.10 COMMENT: In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul shall be called even though no previous warning had been issued. In this situation, if the official stopped the clock and issued a team warning, it would allow the team to benefit from the tactic.

why the T
 

In my game I would hold the whistle...let them stand there holding the ball, let the clock run out. B won't be whistled for a 5 second violation as the ball isn't at their disposal. If A complains then they get the T. If A realizes what is happening and then gives B the ball, then they get the T, but if they are content to stand there holding the ball while the clock runs out, so be it.

Even if A gives the ball to B, I'm not calling the T unless B then tries a throwin and it was delayed by A's actions. If B gets the ball and just stands there, I'll just start my count. No way I'm getting to 5 in the OP.

This doesn't make sense. A just scored: you're going to let them interfere with B's opportunity to put the ball back in play? I disagree: based on the case plays already posted, I'm calling the T sooner rather than later on this.

Maybe you just misread the OP and didn't realize that A scored, that they're ahead, and that they're denying B the opportunity to put the ball back in play.

The only thing that this shows is that the warning is accomapanying the Technical.
If the opponent of the the thrower reaches through the plan and bats the ball away at any time during the the game the technical foul is called.
That technical foul automatically carries a warning for delay.

I'm not sure which of us is right. I'm reading it as A just scored but still trails and is simply trying to stop the clock.

If A is ahead and does this, simply stop the clock and issue the warning. No need for a T (unless they've already been warned.)

This is the relevant part to the OP:
IOW, it says to let it go if the trailing team is trying to delay the game just to stop the clock when they're out of TOs.

Folks, I'm well aware of the case play in the book. However, as someone has cited, that deals with 5 seconds or less. My OP had more than 5 seconds which I can't find a case play for.

So if the team who is behind and needs the clock to stop grabs the ball or , bats the ball away before its picked up by the thrower, what do you have? That's the question at hand. Do you reward the defense with a delay warning which stops the clock which is what they want?

Also, again, if you heard the coach instruct his players along the lines of "if we score, bat the ball away " could you/would you call a T if that actually then happened using the "upsporting conduct" logic?

1. I see your point, but the case play works with 8 seconds as well, IMO. Let the ball roll/bounce away while the clock runs. The spirit and intent behind the case play also works when there is 8 seconds remaining.

2. No, either let it go, or if the new offense is trying to inbound the ball, go straight to the T.

3. No. Not based on the coach's words, anyway. Base it on the case play.

The spirit and intent of the D.O.G. rule is not to allow the defense to benefit. the key part of the case play is not the time remaining, although it is definitely relevant. The key part is "if its only purpose is to stop the clock."

If there are 8 seconds remaining, I'm calling a delay. You have no rules justification to do anything else. Coach A also deserves consideration for Coach of the Year for knowing the rules well enough to benefit his team.

If there are 5 seconds or less remaining. I have nothing. A1 could drop kick the ball into the upper deck and I am not blowing my whistle. Game over, drive home safely.

I may have to check
 

You know, it may take me a couple seconds to make sure that A's head coach doesn't need a time out, and oh look at that when I look back to the endline there are less than 5 seconds left.........In either case I am not going to stop the game and let them benefit from an illegal tactic...

That was the argument given by one of the vets in the group. The rulebook says to call a delay. Is there another rule/interp that we could use to override the delay rule?

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

That was brought up as well.

I don't believe that there is a rule that addresses this like there is for the attempt to delay with only seconds on the clock. According to the RULES you ignore the attempted delay unless it interferes with the team attempting thier throw -in,(in thier face preventing the throw-in, knocking the ballout of thier hands,or preventing them from getting the ball at all). You will not be popular (what's the change right) for the call but they will think about it next time. There is also the possibility for a intentional foul in your sit. which must be watched for and called, much to the shagrin of coaches everywhere. There are legal (bad word choice) ways to stop the clock and illegal ways thanks to the rules.

The rule says to ignore if there are 5 seconds or less. What about if there are 20 and the defensive player crosses the boundary line? Delay of game per the rulebook?

I guess we need to contact the rules committee for the exact time break to call or not to call.

Haven't they already determined that its 5 seconds?

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.

The rule book spefically considers this tactic to be wrong. It also specifically states that fouling is an accepted and appropriate strategy.

Note also that if the defense fouled in the OP rather than hitting the ball away; it would most likely be an intentional foul.

Wait to foul until the ball is at the throwers disposal.

Scarcasm is so hard to type.:)

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?"

Ahh, duly noted.

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."

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. :)

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?

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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"

apples and oranges
 

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 :D

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!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

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"????

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.

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.

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."

Fixed it for you.

No one here has said they'd T for crossing the boundary plane. I would simply ignore that.

If a B player, after a B basket, throws the ball to the other endline, I don't care what part of the game we're in, they get the T.

If a B player, after a B basket, slaps the ball to the official with 8 seconds left, I'll bat it to the thrower and start my count when it's appropriate.

If a B player, after a B basket, grabs the ball and holds it with 8 seconds left, I'm just going to stand there and stare at him.

The threshold for a T on this case play is pretty high, even with under 5 seconds.

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?