Delay of Game Warning??

[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 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.

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Are you admitting that you're wrong? Or you just don't want people saying that?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Rulz rules.
...

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Who's block signal is this?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Only in order to complete our previous discussion and finish it off:

Shut up.