Quote:
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??
|
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Mon Jan 11, 2010, 12:10pm
Similar Threads
Hybrid Mode
