Delay of Game Warning??
 

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??

How about Rule 10 (Fouls and Penalties), Section 3 (Player Technical) ART. 5 . . . Delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in play.

WHACK!

PENALTY: (Section 3) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in.

Hahahahha, this is hilarious, I wish I could have seen this live.

This might be even funnier. If a kid grabs the ball and leaves the facility with it, this is not a warning. This is a technical foul as the player prevented the ball from being put into play. It's also pretty darn unsporting.

Where the hell did they go?

The coach argued that this is no different then if his player touched the ball when it came through the net and caused it to roll up the floor, that he would get a warning first then technical on the next time it happened.

But we'll never know now, will we coach? Why didn't you have your player just touch it and cause it to roll up the floor, then?

Intentional touch or not, we're not allowing this maneuver to succeed in running out the clock.

If I judge it to be unintentional, then I'll whistle to stop the clock, DOG warning, bring the ball back, and proceed. If I judge it to be intentional, T, same as the OP.

T for delay, plus Ts for unauthorized leaving the court.

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.

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

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.

No Way! A coach thought that? Who would believe it!

Yep, and your other option is to simply ignore it and let the clock run.

I'm no Bob Jenkins, but I'd be comfy with calling 4-20


ART. 14 . . . An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists
of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with
the spirit of fair play.

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

Sorry, didn't read it through. That said, 4-20 art 14 is all you need and is a broad umbrella.

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.

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

Yes, now stop rubbing it in.

Touchy. Or is that touché? :D

How about tuchis?

Too obscure. :D

How much weight has Rich lost for his tuchis to be obscure. ;)

Snaqs,
Just curious. In this situation, Team A (the team I coach :)) has just made the three to pull within one. Shockingly :eek:, I failed to keep a timeout for such a situation and only have "Webers" left. But, seeing that there are under five seconds remaining, I IMMEDIATELY and LOUDLY signal for a timeout, knowing that it will result in a technical foul. If the ball is still in the net on its downward flight, are you going to grant this timeout? If not, what is your rule reference for ignoring it?

Nope, a TO can't be legally granted because the ball isn't dead yet until it clears the net. And you knew that(semantics- but still important rules-wise).

Now once the ball clears the net......

Different scenarios.....

1) A TO request that was legally made should always be granted. Whether the actual TO granted was legal or not is a whole' nother matter. So no, you don't ignore a legal TO request.

2) If the team that just scored now wants to get a DOG warning charged though, then you go by the direction of casebook play 9.3.3SitD-COMMENT

Apples and oranges iow...

Note that I answered for SNAQs because I know he'd give you basically the same answer.

I will grant it for three reasons.

1. I'm not perceptive enough at this point to determine that the ball has not yet passed through the net, so I'll probably think it's through.
2. There is no case play or rule stating that I can ignore a timeout request that is made at the appropriate time.
3. (secondarily) The penalty for the excess timeout is sufficient that you won't benefit from this tactic. It's also the same penalty the book prescribes if you cannot ignore the violation.

Yep, but a bit more slowly. :)

Not enough. My partner the other night was in a pair of size 31 Sansabelts and complained he weighed 152 pounds. I'd have to give him 25 pounds and 2 inches (don't even go there) to even us out.

Who's block signal is this?

LOL! I am trying so hard to contain myself right now. You're going to get me in trouble at work!

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

Shut up.