I am also from WI and I might have had this team earlier in the year. With about the same time on the clock after a made basket A1 grabbed the ball and threw it about 75 feet off the back wall of the fieldhouse...they had not been issued a delay of game warning...I whacked him in a heart beat...coach went crazy saying there had to be a warning first.

Concur
 

Agree, this would be like punishing twice for the same offense if you have already T'd them IAW Rule 10.

Had a play a couple of years ago where, with about 4 or 5 seconds left, the trailing team hit a three to close within 1 point; but they were out of timeouts.

They tried stepping out of bounds to draw the DOG warning, but my partner (lead) rightly ignored it.

Coach just shrugged his shoulders as the clock ran out.

I meant it humorously, but 10-3-2, or whatever you'd use if the team ran the "go out of bounds, out the door and back in the door at the other end of the gym" play.

I think a more defining case play is needed. I saw a team lose an outright conference championship last year in similar fashion. The opposing coach, down five, and out of time outs, told one official they would create a delay situation if they scored. They did score a two, slapped the ball just a bit down the floor out of the net, and got a DOG and subsequent clock stoppage with nine seconds remaining. They then set up their press, created a turnover, and hit a three at the horn, and then went on to win in OT.

I don't blame the opposing coach at all. He's trying to win, using the rule book to his advantage--the officials didn't believe they had any rules support other than to allow the stoppage for delay of game without penalty.

Maybe they did, or maybe they didn't?

You're right, I'd like to see the case play expanded to say something to the effect of, "If it's apparent the defense commits a DOG violation for the purpose of stopping the clock, either ignore it or call the T."

Personally, I'm probably ignoring it at 9 seconds as well, but I'm not as convinced of the rules backing for it. Especially if the coach warned me, then I'd be prepared to ignore it. Their little tactic would only give the new offense that much extra time before I started my count.

Exactly Snaqwells! Totally agree.

Really? :confused: You know that the ruling in the case play says under five seconds and yet you personally think that seven seconds left qualifies!!! :eek: That's one of the sillliest things you've ever written on this forum. :(
Here's a little math lesson 5 < 7. :p


What should be done in the OP is a technical foul to A2 for unsporting conduct 10-3-6.

As far as A3 and A4 also getting penalized for leaving the gym/playing area there was mention of such in a past POE, but it was written prior to the rule change making leaving the court merely a violation and not a technical foul, plus it is not an exact fit because the individuals who leave are not bench personnel, they were actual players in the game at the time. Personally, I would leave this part alone and justify it by stating that the ball became dead when A2 committed his unsporting T, so the leaving of the court by A3 and A4 isn't illegal during the dead ball period.

2004-05 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

3. Player positioning/status. Players must play the game within the confines of the playing court. Otherwise, a tremendous advantage is gained by allowing a team or player more space than allowed. There are two specific areas of concern:

A. Players on the court. Last year's emphasis ensured that defensive players obtain legal guarding position while on the playing court and not while out of bounds. The same principle is in place for all players. Too often, players are leaving the court for unauthorized reasons. An all-too-common example is an offensive player getting around a screen or defensive player by running out of bounds. That is not legal and gives a tremendous advantage to the offense. Officials must enforce the rule that is already in place. It is a technical foul. Coaches benefit the game by teaching players to play on the court.

The committee is also concerned about bench personnel leaving the bench, sometimes during a live ball. Heading into the hallway to get a drink or sitting up in the stands with friends or family, even for a short period of time, are not authorized reasons unless they are medically related. Coaches must ensure that bench personnel remain on the bench.

OMG! Make up your own rules much? :eek:

How about if there are 30 seconds left or 59? What difference does it make? It's not UNDER FIVE, which is what the ruling specifies.

How can you feel that such action is justified with seven seconds left, but "not as convinced of the rules backing" when there are nine seconds? This is black and white. The NFHS gave you a specific number to use. You need to adhere to that. :(

Just wait until JR comes along to tell you, "rulez rule."

Seriously? All right, here's my thought process on it. You can take it or leave it. The reasoning given in the comment (quote again above) applies just as much when there are 7 seconds left as when there are 5.

To answer a seemingly pedantic question, the difference is the benefit gained. With 7 seconds left, the offense can run out the clock without the ball even being touched just as easily as with 5. The benefit of this tactic is tangible, unintended, and undesired by the rules committee. At 9 seconds, it's admittedly fuzzier. Are you suggesting that stopping the clock is a legitimate and approved reason for a team to commit this violation, in spite of the comment for this particular case play? Or is it only illegitimate with under 5 seconds remaining?


Maybe I'll listen, maybe I won't. I will, however, check local listings. :)

Rulz rules.:)

The NFHS rulesmakers established the time parameters. They had to pick some time frame and they picked the one that matched the time allowed for a team to make the throw-in after a basket. That is kinda logical imo. If they allowed a longer time, as you suggest, then a team is now being allowed a longer throw-in time than normally allowed by rule. That's not fair to the other team.

You're advocating changing the rules to concur with your vision of the way the world should be. Your reasoning could be flawless but we still have to follow the rule, even though the rule may be flawed.

Whenever I get the urge to impose my own personal brand of logic during a game, I usually suppress it by saying to myself "JR, what are you gonna say if your supervisor wants an explanation of why you made that call? That usually snaps me back to reality. Would you call this in a state championship game with all the attendant publicity and knowing that your every call was going to be analyzed...especially a call at the end of a close game that might decide that game?

Jmo, Snaqs, and you know how much it hurts me to have to agree with CumquatHead.:D

I had no idea that this recent cold snap had extended so far south. :eek:

Maybe I am a little confused, as that does happen often, but I thought that leaving the floor was a violation not a T (in most cases). In this case I would agree with that unsportsmanlike like technical foul. However 9-3-3 stats that a player shall not leave the floor for an unauthorized reason. I believe that this was changed from a T to a violation in the 2006-2007 year or 2007-2008 as too many officials felt the penalty was too harsh and were not calling it.

You are correct. But, that's for the "I'm still playing basketball, just not in the 84' x 50' rectangle" violations.

The "I'm no longer playing basketball but am trying to make a mockery of the game" plays are more harshly penalized.

Never let it be said that I won't admit when I'm wrong.