Delay of Game Warning??

[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??

[grunewar]

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.

[wildcatter]

Originally Posted by Gargil

A2 grabs the ball as it comes through the basket and runs out the gym doors escorted by A3 and A4

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

The officials originally called technical foul, then changed to delay of game warning.

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?

[Gargil]

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Gargil

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?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Gargil

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.

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.

[bob jenkins]

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

[Vinski]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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

[Loudwhistle]

Originally Posted by Gargil

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.

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

[Adam]

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.

[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.

[Adam]

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.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.