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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Vinski

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

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fullor30

I'm no Bob Jenkins, bit 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."

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.