As far as a player drawing attention to himself, is this any different than the
strutting/high fives/chest bumping that goes on when the starting lineups are introduced?

Excellent question, and I agree that the difference in time is not a significant difference.

The significant difference is that when teams are drinking water during a TO, they're doing something legal. When that dope throws powder all over the floor, he isn't.

Perhaps this point is leading in the direction of an unsporting T, rather than delay...

If it will make you feel better, use 10-1-5-b. That language meets the requirements for a T in this situation also.

O-K ?

Exactly. Can you show me where spilling water on the floor is "legal", but spilling powder isn't? ;)

Again, my hangup is more on the terminolgy used in the calling of the T. A T for a delay is harder to back by rule, unless there was an official warning issued first. Also, a T for delay is a team T, and if the purpose is to penalize the idiot, wouldn't a direct T for unsporting behavior be more appropriate?

Delay or Taunting/unsporting T?
 

The rules actually give you the authority to do either,
RULE 10 Fouls and Penalties
Section 1 Team Technicals
ART. 5 . . . Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts:
a. When the clock is not running consuming a full minute through not being ready when it is time to start either half.

Yes they are ready but the direct, and controlable actions of their teammate made the facility unplayable.

Section 3 Player Technicals
ART. 7 . . . Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:
c. Baiting or taunting an opponent.
If you are going to make the call I think by rule you would have a tougher time selling the Unsporting Technical.

I think this again becomes a game managment situation.
Yes the Kid has done something stupid,
Can we get around starting the game with a T? Probably
If we are going to T the kid what other consequences are involved?
Do they fit the actions and or the context of what is going on?

If a delay of game technical is necessary I can see that - a direct unsporting technical foul might require a little more than a toss of some chalk in the air, I'm not saying I would have a problem, but there is a lot of chest pounding and other stuff that goes one that might fit the same bill before the game as taunting.
So I would be really careful as to which Technical I gave out.

Also remember that the knucklehead that got them their technical still has to start the game, (unless a sudden illness takes him:p) they can sub and sit him down after the clock starts.

If the dealy were only a couple of minutes I might try to avoid any T here, - if it was over 5 minutes I do not think you would have much choice.

Still not OK. I see you actually meant 10-3-5a originally. These rules deal with players not being where they are supposed to be or players slapping the ball away, etc. thus preventing the ball from being put in play.
The play at hand does not seem to fit this rule, in my opinion.

During introductions, A1 bends over and slaps the floor, and dislodges a tile.
There is delay while the floor is repaired.

A1 is unable to play due to a stomach virus, but is in uniform for the game.
He pukes on the court during warmups. The start of the game is delayed for cleanup.

You gonna call a T for these?

No, as I have said before, puking on the court is a violation for an illegal dribble. :p

unforseen consequence of that action

While forseeable still accidental and therefore an exception.

The tossing of the Chalk has a reasonable, foreseeable and preventable outcome, and therefore would be a lot easier to back up with an assignor.
Yes they are readyto play but the direct, and controlable actions of their teammate caused the delay by making the facility unplayable.

While I would be trying not to have to make this call if possible, I can at least back it up.

I meant 10-3-5a originally. I used last year's book to give the old rules citation. I have now gone back and changed it. That rule isn't applicable anyway because the person who threw the powder in the air wasn't a "player". He was still "bench personnel" because the game hadn't started yet. I realized that after I posted.

Rule 10-1-5b is still easily applicable though. It says that it's a team T to allow the game to develop into an actionless contest through delaying the game by preventing the ball being made promptly live or from being put in play. The person being introduced did delay the ball being made promptly live on the opening jump by his actions.

The plays that you outlined above have nothing to do with the play being discussed. They are irrelevant.

O-K ?

10-1-5b-
 

really referes to restarting the game after a time out and the resumption of play procedures,(7-5-1 and 8-1-2)for a throw in or a free throw, then issueing a Technical after the complete cycle of proceedure.

side note
 

Several years ago during second round the ACC conference tournament - a rather well know official was sent home from the tournament, losing at least one possibly two more games), after issuing a Technical foul to North Carolina for delay of game after following, not only the rules but the guidelines given to the officials at the begining of the tournament.

In the first half there were a couple delays with NC having to wipe/dry the floor after having their time out out near the lane area. Early in the second half the game was again delyed by about a minute while the floor was dried after an NC timeout. At this point an official warning was issued for delay of game at this point.

About mid way through the second half after a 30 second time out the floor area of the NC bench was being wiped down and delayed the game again so a technical foul was issued to NC.

Coaches, Fans, Administrators, and Announcers lambasted the referee for making the Technical call in close ball game and the co-ordinator of officials said in a statement after the punishment of the official was made public that he expected better judgement from an official with that much experience in the ACC.

Note during the officails tournament meetings this particular delay of game scenario was a point of emphasis, officials were told that they were to do everything with in their power and the rules to prevent these delays from occuring.

So just be sure you are doing !

Doing the provincials finals last year. Assistant RIC comes in from out of town, and eval'd me on one particular game. I guess he was sleeping during the pre-tournament meeting when the Head RIC quoted a provincial policy regarding the half-time mechanics that referees are to follow.

The As'st RIC's first comment to me: telling me that I mishandled the half-time communication with the coach. His suggestion: exact opposite to the policy set by our governing body. :rolleyes:

If ever a YABUT was justified....

No way jose that floor is not ready for play anyway. Besides spilling water while drinking during a TO & throwing dust for your own aggrandizement before a game are 2 extremely different things IMO. One's a T & the other is common in-game court maintenance.

No. The resumption of play procedure is a completely separate part of rule 10-1-5b.

If the resumption of play procedure does <b>not</b> apply, as is the case in this particular situation, it is an <b>immediate</b> T to delay the game with <b>no</b> prior warning.

Just mark it up as yet another example of a rule that you don't understand.