Delay of Game

[Judtech]

In Situation A that "T" only comes if the players are not in place in time for the substitute free throw

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Judtech

In Situation A that "T" only comes if the players are not in place in time for the substitute free throw

We're talking about 10.1.5 Situation C.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Let us look at 2009-10 NFHS R10-S1-A5; it states:

"A team shall not allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts:
a. When the clock is not running consuming a full minute through not being ready when it is time to start either half.
b. Delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or
from being put in play. See 7-5-1 and 8-1-2 for the resumption-of-play
procedure to use after a time-out or the intermission between quarters. The
procedure is used prior to charging a technical foul in these specific
situations.
c. Commit a violation of the throw-in boundary-line plane, as in 9-2-10, after any team warning for delay.
d. Contact with the free thrower or a huddle of two or more players in the lane by either team prior to a free throw following any team warning for delay.
e. Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay.
f. Not having the court ready for play following any time-out after any team warning for delay."


Now let us look and 2009-10 NFHS Casebook Play 10.1.5 Situation C. This particular Casebook Play is divided into two (2) seperate situations (a) and (b), and the rule reference for the rulings in both (a) and (b) is NFHS R4-S47. R4-S47 is the correct rule reference for 10.1.5 Situation C(a) BUT it is NOT the correct rule reference for 10.1.5 Situation C(b) which is the the situation that is the play in the original post of this thread.


R10-S1-A5(c, d, e, and f) are the Rule 10 penalties for any further infractions of R4-S47 after the first one. The similar acts phrase of R10-S1-A5(b) could be possibly be applied to the OP but as I have stated in my second post (Post #13) of this thread, that there are two rules that better cover this situation and situations similar to it, and they are R10-S3-A5(A) and R10-S4-A1.

Failure of an individual(s) to occupy the first lane space(s) after being instructed to do so are infractions of the rules by an individual(s), except when part of the Resuming Play Procedure and the OP is not a RPP situation.

Applying the wrong rule to a situation in a Casebook Play is not something new by the NFHS. R4-47 does not apply to the OP anymore that it applies to 10.1.5 Situation C(b).

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

R10-S1-A5(c, d, e, and f) are the Rule 10 penalties for any further infractions of R4-S47 after the first one. The similar acts phrase of R10-S1-A5(b) could be possibly be applied to the OP but as I have stated in my second post (Post #13) of this thread, that there are two rules that better cover this situation and situations similar to it, and they are R10-S3-A5(A) and R10-S4-A1.

Failure of an individual(s) to occupy the first lane space(s) after being instructed to do so are infractions of the rules by an individual(s), except when part of the Resuming Play Procedure and the OP is not a RPP situation.

Applying the wrong rule to a situation in a Casebook Play is not something new by the NFHS. R4-47 does not apply to the OP anymore that it applies to 10.1.5 Situation C(b).

MTD, Sr.

I don't care how many 10,00 word essays you post to try and obfuscate the facts, Mark. It just ain't gonna work. Somewhere along the line, you have to come up with something out of the rule/case book that will back you up. And you can't do that because the case book completely contradicts your latest flight of fancy.

The numbering of case book plays corresponds to the rule being referenced. Casebook play 10-1-5SitC(b) relates to rule 10-1-5. Rule 10-1-5 is about TEAM technical fouls. It's that freaking simple.

The situation described in the original post is the EXACT same situation that is described in case book play 10-1-5SitC(b). It's also that freaking simple. And casebook play 10.1.5SitC(b) says that it's a team technical foul, NOT a freaking direct technical foul on the head coach.

And basically what you are saying is that we should completely ignore the rules and do what you advocate. Do you realize how truly ridiculous that concept is?

And I'm saying that anyone who is stoopid enough to do what you advocate deserves to be doing games at the Podunk, Ohio Middle School with you as their partner. They are at the absolute level of their competency.