Never Say Always ???

[BillyMac]

At one of our recent meetings a statement was made to, "Always penalize with TEAM technical fouls if a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations." Since that meeting this statement has been gnawing at my brain. I thought that there must be a situation where a PLAYER technical is charged if a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations. So I did some research today.

10-3-5 PLAYER Technicals: Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.
d. Repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10.

This rule leads me to believe that PLAYER technical fouls may possibly be charged when a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations.

Let's review 9-2-10:
9-2-10: The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.
Penalty 1: The first violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane by an opponent(s) of the thrower shall result in a team warning for delay being given (one delay warning per team per game). The warning does not result in the loss of the opportunity to move along the end line when and if applicable.
Penalty 2: The second or additional violations will result in a technical foul assessed to the offending team. See 10-1-5c Penalty.

Here's one possible situation that I found:
10.3.10 SITUATION D: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Earlier in the game, Team B had received a team warning for delay. RULING: Even though Team B had already been issued a warning for team delay, when B1 breaks the plane and subsequently contacts the ball in the thrower’s hand, it is considered all the same act and the end result is penalized. A PLAYER technical foul is assessed to B1; two free throws and a division line throw-in for Team A will follow. The previous warning for team delay still applies with any subsequent team delay resulting in a team technical foul. (4-47; 9-2-10 Penalty 3; 10-1-5c)

What are some other situations where a PLAYER technical is charged if a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations? In other words, what are some situations where a PLAYER technical foul is charged for preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play; or repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10?

The difference really does matter, especially in terms of the number of fouls a player has counted toward disqualification.

I've been concentrating on the delay of game warning and technical foul for 10-1-5 Team Technicals: Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts: e. Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay.

Many years ago, wasn't there casebook play, or an annual interpretation, where, in the waning seconds of a game, after Team A scores, Team A is behind, and wants to stop the clock, so A1 picks up the ball after the made field goal and throws it several rows up into the bleachers? I believe that I remember this as being a PLAYER technical foul for interfering with the ball following a goal if there was more than five seconds left in the game, and to ignore the act if there was less than five seconds in the game. Did I dream this?

I’m really trying to understand is the purpose and intent of 10-3-5. When do we penalize PLAYERS, rather than a TEAM, for delay of game infractions? Is the general statement true to, "Always penalize with TEAM technical fouls if a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations." ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[BktBallRef]

Technically, B1 hitting the ball while it's in the thrower's hands in not one of the four delays.

Breaking the plane is the violation that receives the warning.

If the warning has been given for breaking the plane, then by rule, B1 commits delay when he breaks the plane on a throw-in, not when he touches the ball.

But the case play calls for the T to be assessed to the player.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

At one of our recent meetings a statement was made to, "Always penalize with TEAM technical fouls if a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations." Since that meeting this statement has been gnawing at my brain. I thought that there must be a situation where a PLAYER technical is charged if a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations. So I did some research today.

10-3-5 PLAYER Technicals: Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.
d. Repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10.

This rule leads me to believe that PLAYER technical fouls may possibly be charged when a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations.

Let's review 9-2-10:
9-2-10: The opponent(s) of the thrower shall not have any part of his/her person through the inbounds side of the throw-in boundary-line plane until the ball has been released on a throw-in pass.
Penalty 1: The first violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane by an opponent(s) of the thrower shall result in a team warning for delay being given (one delay warning per team per game). The warning does not result in the loss of the opportunity to move along the end line when and if applicable.
Penalty 2: The second or additional violations will result in a technical foul assessed to the offending team. See 10-1-5c Penalty.

Here's one possible situation that I found:
10.3.10 SITUATION D: A1 is out of bounds for a throw-in. B1 reaches through the boundary plane and knocks the ball out of A1’s hands. Earlier in the game, Team B had received a team warning for delay. RULING: Even though Team B had already been issued a warning for team delay, when B1 breaks the plane and subsequently contacts the ball in the thrower’s hand, it is considered all the same act and the end result is penalized. A PLAYER technical foul is assessed to B1; two free throws and a division line throw-in for Team A will follow. The previous warning for team delay still applies with any subsequent team delay resulting in a team technical foul. (4-47; 9-2-10 Penalty 3; 10-1-5c)

What are some other situations where a PLAYER technical is charged if a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations? In other words, what are some situations where a PLAYER technical foul is charged for preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play; or repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10?

The difference really does matter, especially in terms of the number of fouls a player has counted toward disqualification.

I've been concentrating on the delay of game warning and technical foul for 10-1-5 Team Technicals: Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts: e. Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay.

Many years ago, wasn't there casebook play, or an annual interpretation, where, in the waning seconds of a game, after Team A scores, Team A is behind, and wants to stop the clock, so A1 picks up the ball after the made field goal and throws it several rows up into the bleachers? I believe that I remember this as being a PLAYER technical foul for interfering with the ball following a goal if there was more than five seconds left in the game, and to ignore the act if there was less than five seconds in the game. Did I dream this?

I’m really trying to understand is the purpose and intent of 10-3-5. When do we penalize PLAYERS, rather than a TEAM, for delay of game infractions? Is the general statement true to, "Always penalize with TEAM technical fouls if a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations." ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Billy:

The ghost of J. Dallas Shirley must have been sitting on your shoulder.

MTD, Sr.

[eg-italy]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I’m really trying to understand is the purpose and intent of 10-3-5. When do we penalize PLAYERS, rather than a TEAM, for delay of game infractions? Is the general statement true to, "Always penalize with TEAM technical fouls if a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations." ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I'd say this is a case of "don't penalize twice for a single act". A team technical is a lesser penalty than a player technical, so go with the heavier penalty.

In FIBA we don't have "team technical fouls"; after a delay of game warning to a team, any subsequent delay is penalized with a T charged to the offending player. To be honest, I'd be glad if the FIBA rules had a clearer position about delay of game infractions, but it's another matter.

Ciao

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10-3-5 PLAYER Technicals: Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.

It's possibly left over from the time when a T was given only if a warning had been issued for that particular act.

For now, consider it the equivalent of 2-3 and stop obsessing about it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10-3-5 PLAYER Technicals: Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.

This rule leads me to believe that PLAYER technical fouls may possibly be charged when a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's possibly left over from the time when a T was given only if a warning had been issued for that particular act.

For now, consider it the equivalent of 2-3 and stop obsessing about it.

It has a purpose. The key word is preventing as opposed to delaying.

I actually called it last year (only time in 16 years) when a player, after a made basket, swatted the ball into the 10th row. No delay warning had been called.

The difference is in the magnatude of the action...a delay such as holding the ball for 2-3 seconds or tapping away from the thrower vs. simply making it not available to the thrower at all.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

10-3-5 PLAYER Technicals: Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.
d. Repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10.



What are some other situations where a PLAYER technical is charged if a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations? In other words, what are some situations where a PLAYER technical foul is charged for preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play; or repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10?

The difference really does matter, especially in terms of the number of fouls a player has counted toward disqualification.



I’m really trying to understand is the purpose and intent of 10-3-5. When do we penalize PLAYERS, rather than a TEAM, for delay of game infractions? Is the general statement true to, "Always penalize with TEAM technical fouls if a delay of game infraction occurs after the first warning for any of the four delay of game situations." ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It's possibly left over from the time when a T was given only if a warning had been issued for that particular act.

For now, consider it the equivalent of 2-3 and stop obsessing about it.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It has a purpose. The key word is preventing as opposed to delaying.

I actually called it last year (only time in 16 years) when a player, after a made basket, swatted the ball into the 10th row. No delay warning had been called.

The difference is in the magnatude of the action...a delay such as holding the ball for 2-3 seconds or tapping away from the thrower vs. simply making it not available to the thrower at all.

The rule is there for specific situations such as the following:

2000-01 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 13: A1 is at the free-throw line to shoot a free throw. The lead official bounces the ball to A1, and B1, who is in one of the free-throw lane spaces, a) reaches out and intercepts the bounce pass without breaking the vertical plane of the free-throw lane with either foot and then requests a time-out; or b) breaks the vertical plane of the free-throw lane and intercepts the bounce pass and then requests a time-out. RULING: This is NOT a warning for delay situation, as outlined by Rule 4-46. In both situations, a technical foul shall be called for B1 delaying the game by preventing the ball from being put in play. (10-3-7a)

Billy, can you guess where I found that ruling?