Delay of Game

[Adam]

Bob's right, you were both wrong.

Direct them to give you two players. If the coach refuses, it's a technical foul. If he wants his players to commit a violation to increase the odds of a made shot, they can do it from the lane spaces.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Bob's right, you were both wrong.

Direct them to give you two players. If the coach refuses, it's a technical foul. If he wants his players to commit a violation to increase the odds of a made shot, they can do it from the lane spaces.

Yup. NFHS case book play 10.1.5SitC(b)---> team "T" for any delay filling both spots after being directed to.

It was an AAU girls game with an official from NY. Mighta been NCAA Wimmens rules. I'm not sure without checking if there is a difference. And I don't feel like checking.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yup. NFHS case book play 10.1.5SitC(b)---> team "T" for any delay filling both spots after being directed to.

It was an AAU girls game with an official from NY. Mighta been NCAA Wimmens rules. I'm not sure without checking if there is a difference. And I don't feel like checking.

JR:

There is no difference between NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's that I am aware of, but when the Team B's HC (B1 is shooting the free throws) has his five (5) players huddling with him I am inclined to charge the HC and not the team with the delay of game TF because if B1 was already occupying one of the first lane spaces and B2 refused to occupy the other lane space it would be a TF charged to B2 for delay of game.

MTD, Sr.


P.S. JR, I decided to read the NFHS Casebook Play after I submitted my post. I still stand by my interpretation that A-HC can be charged with the TF in the the OP because he is the one that is keeping B2 and B3 from occupying the first two lane spaces, where in the Casebook Play it presupposes that B2 and B3 are refusing to occupy the first two lane spaces of their own volition (I think I spelled it correctly, and if I didn't I am sure someone will correct me.).

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

..... occupy the first two lane spaces of their own volition (I think I spelled it correctly, and if I didn't I am sure someone will correct me.).

Yes, you spelled "spaces" correctly. Good job.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JR:

There is no difference between NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's that I am aware of, but when the Team A's HC (A1 is shooting the free throws) has his four (4) other players huddling with him I am inclined to charge the HC and not the team with the delay of game TF because A1 was already occupying one of the first lane spaces and A2 refused to occupy the other lane space it would be a TF charged to A2 for delay of game.

P.S. JR, I decided to read the NFHS Casebook Play after I submitted my post. I still stand by my stoopid personal opinion that A-HC can be charged with the TF in the the OP because he is the one that is keeping A2 and A3 from occupying the first two lane spaces, where in the Casebook Play it presupposes that A2 and A3 are refusing to occupy the first two lane spaces of their own volition.

Un-freaking- believable!!!

You're saying that your personal opinion is right and the rules as written are wrong. Do you really know how fundamentally stoopid that statement of yours is?

The case book play is the EXACT same play being discussed. And the RULES say that it's a TEAM technical foul. But you want to make up your very own rule and charge the head coach with a "T". That means that if that coach already has a "T", you're going to have to toss him. Good luck with that one, Mark.

Make up your own rules and you're committing career suicide if you get caught. And when there's a definitive case play that clearly covers a situation, you WILL be caught, if not by the coach you wrongly nailed but by a fellow official that does know the correct rule. Then it's back to the odd grade 5 game at Podunk Middle School.

Un-freaking- believable. This one isn't even worthy of a discussion, it's so black'n'white.

Forget all about the rules and make up your own.

Lah me.......

[Back In The Saddle]

Easy there, JR...don't be hatin' on PMS. We may be small, but we play with heart. And we deserve to have good refs too.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

And we deserve to have good refs too.

And I agree with that too, BITS.

But the point still is......

According to OHSAA rules(and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) where MTD Sr. is from, if you eject a coach:
1) You have to write up an ejection report and submit it to the coach's school and OHSAA within 48 hours.
2) You also have to speak to the coach's principal about the ejection by the first school day following the ejection.
3) The coach gets an automatic 2-game suspension and a $100 fine, and iirc they have to take a behavior course also.

So you'd better believe that if a coach was issued a "T" like MTD suggests, and that "T" ended up with the ejection of the coach, the coach would sureasheck be looking into making sure that the correct rule was used. It sureasheck ain't that difficult then to find out there IS a definitive case play covering the situation. And with Ohio being a state where the coaches already have an inordinate amount of power, guess what's gonna happen to the official that screwed up the call.

You make up your own rules, you get what you deserve.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

And I agree with that too, BITS.

But the point still is......

According to OHSAA rules(and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) where MTD Sr. is from, if you eject a coach:
1) You have to write up an ejection report and submit it to the coach's school and OHSAA within 48 hours.
2) You also have to speak to the coach's principal about the ejection by the first school day following the ejection.
3) The coach gets an automatic 2-game suspension and a $100 fine, and iirc they have to take a behavior course also.

So you'd better believe that if a coach was issued a "T" like MTD suggests, and that "T" ended up with the ejection of the coach, the coach would sureasheck be looking into making sure that the correct rule was used. It sureasheck ain't that difficult then to find out there IS a definitive case play covering the situation. And with Ohio being a state where the coaches already have an inordinate amount of power, guess what's gonna happen to the official that screwed up the call.

You make up your own rules, you get what you deserve.

JR:

You are correct with the OhioHSAA ramifications. BUT, (1) per both NFHS and NCAA rules, not only can a team be charged with a TF for delay of game, so can an individual (player or coach) can be charged with a TF for committing a delay of game infraction when the situation warrants it. AND, (2), when the HC takes it upon himself to order his players not to occupy the first two lanes spaces, the HC is the one that is delaying the game at this point and can be charged with a TF for delaying the game.

Let us return to 2009-10 NFHS Casebook Play 10.1.5 Situation C(b). The Ruling references 2009-10 NFHS R4-S47 which does not apply. Therefore, by rule, B1 and B2 should have both been charged with a TF for delay of game per NFHS R10-S3-A5, which states:

"A player shall not delay the game by acts such as:
a. Preventing the ball from being made live promptly or from being put in
play.
b. Failing when in possession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer
official when a whistle blows.
c. The free thrower fails to be in the free-throw semicircle when the official is ready to administer the free throw unless the resumption-of-play procedure is in effect following a time-out or intermission.
d. Repeated violations of the throw-in, as in 9-2-10."

I have highlighted the words "such as" in red because they mean that actions other that the four listed can be an infrations of NFHS R10-S3-A5.

The same logic within NFHS R10-S3-A5 is applied to NFHS R10-S4-A1, which states:

"Bench personnel, including the head coach, shall not commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:
a. Disrespectfully addressing an official.
b. Attempting to influence an official’s decision.
c. Using profane or inappropriate language or obscene gestures.
d. Disrespectfully addressing, baiting or taunting an opponent.
NOTE: The NFHS disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender or national origin.
e. Objecting to an official’s decision by rising from the bench or using
gestures.
f. Inciting undesirable crowd reactions.
g. Being charged with fighting.
h. Removing the jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the
playing area."

And yes, I charged a HC with a TF about five years ago for the exact same actions of the HC in the OP. It was his second TF of the game and he was ejected, but the $100 fine and the required anger management course were not added to the penalty until two years ago. It should be noted that the coach must pay the fine with his own personal check.

And one final comment regarding the NFHS Casebook Play which you referenced, this is another example of the people who make these rulings do not have the knowlege of the rules to apply the correct rule.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Both Tom Watson and Tiger Woods have had a tough day on the links and therefore I have thrown myself into this post.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Do you really know how fundamentally stoopid that statement of yours is?.....Then it's back to the odd grade 5 game at Podunk Middle School.

Podunk Middle School, like almost all middle schools, is grades 6, 7 and 8 - not grade 5. Do you really know how fundamentally stoopid that statement of yours is?

BTW - I've been called it so many times in my life, I actually do know the correct way to spell "stupid".

[Jfpdi]

Thanks for clarifying the situation for me. I was wrong in thinking it was a delay of game situation when it should have been direct the coach to send 2 players fill in the lane spots or call a technical. I was just very confused when my partner stated to administer the first shot w/o anyone from the non-shooting team in the lower 2 spaces. Never having run into this situation the only thing I thought of was that if the players huddled in the lane and delayed the administering of the foul shots it is a delay of game situation. I thought the same applied if the players did not get into the 2 spots that must be filled.

As to why the coach called all his players over to the bench he wanted to talk to them. I asked my partner if he was taking a timeout and that is when he told me no it is 2 shots just go ahead and give her ( the shooter) the ball.
I thought my partner should have been telling the coach to get his players in the lane rathere then telling me to administer the shots.