Delay of Game Warning??

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by Gargil

A1 shoots and scores to bring them within 4 points of their opponent with 7 seconds remaining on the clock, having no timeouts A2 grabs the ball as it comes through the basket and runs out the gym doors escorted by A3 and A4 Is this a delay of game warning or an unsportsman like technical foul??
The officials originally called technical foul, then changed to delay of game warning. I did not see anything in the case book and have heard opinions supporting both calls.
What do you think??

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.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yep, but that's not for "unauthorized leaving the court."

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

[Adam]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Vinski

Bob, could you give a rules reference for the text in red, please.

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.

[Jesse James]

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?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

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.

[Red_Killian]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Gargil

A1 shoots and scores to bring them within 4 points of their opponent with 7 seconds remaining on the clock, having no timeouts A2 grabs the ball as it comes through the basket and runs out the gym doors escorted by A3 and A4 Is this a delay of game warning or an unsportsman like technical foul??
The officials originally called technical foul, then changed to delay of game warning. I did not see anything in the case book and have heard opinions supporting both calls.
What do you think??

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

this is as unsporting as it gets. On top of that, there's a case play that says you can go straight to the T if, with under 5 seconds on the clock, the team that is behind attempts to use the DOG call to stop the clock. It's an advantage not intended by the rules.

Personally, I think 7 seconds qualifies for that application here.

The officials here allowed A to take advantage of a rule that the committee does not want them to be able to take advantage of for this benefit.

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

Originally Posted by tjones1

Please tell me there's video of this.... either way, whack!

The case Snaq is talking about is 9.2.10 Situation Comment.

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 has 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.

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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

OMG! Make up your own rules much?

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."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tjones1

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 has 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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

OMG! Make up your own rules much?

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.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

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

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The reasoning given in the comment (quote again above) applies just as much when there are 7 seconds left as when there are 5.

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?

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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

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

[SAK]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAK

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Rulz rules.
(snip)
Jmo, Snaqs, and you know how much it hurts me to have to agree with CumquatHead.

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