Delay of Game

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Judtech

The NFHS Case book section being referenced actually allows for a free throw to be attempted by A1 even if Team B is not occupying the appropriate spaces (10.1.5)

Yes, but only because you've called a T.

So you'd call the T, and then shoot the (original) FT's with the lane spaces empty because the ball will be dead afterward.

Then shoot the FT's for the T (lane still cleared) and put the ball in play accordingly.

[Judtech]

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

[Adam]

If they haven't come out of the timeout huddle, use RPP which allows the FT to be administered without the two defenders on the lane.
If they have come out of the timeout, then the coach pulls them back to huddle, then RPP doesn't apply and you simply direct him to provide you with two players and issue a team T if he doesn't comply.
If there is no timeout involved at all, then once again you do not use RPP for this situation; tell coach you need two, then T if he doesn't comply.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Judtech

It won't suprise some that I am now confused.
If Team A is shooting, there is only the requirement that Team B have two players on the appropriate lane spaces. Team A is only required to have the shooter on the appropriate "lane space". So if Coach A wants to talk to his/her 4 other players that is legal. I am not aware of that rule changing but may be wrong.

The OP said Team B was huddling, thus the need for the two players. (Don't worry, I didn't catch it at first either.)

[Judtech]

Yeah, I saw that. Subsequent posts had B or A shooting with that team huddling, that is where I was confused

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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, your ego is as big as your post.

You're wrong. The play is exactly the same as the case play. There is no other option.

Don't believe us, email Mary and ask her.

[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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Jfpdi

Working a AAU girls game and my partner calls a foul. He's the lead, I'm the trail. He goes to the table to report, I go to the endline to administer 2 free throws. The defending team coach called his players to the bench for a huddle. His bench is at the other end of the court. The free throw shooter is at the line but no one is occupying the 2 lowest lane spots.

NFHS Casebook Play 10.1.5 SITUATION C (b):
The calling official has reported the foul and proceeds to his/her proper position for the first of two free throws awarded to A1. Two B players are not occupying the first two marked lane spaces next to the end line as required.
RULING: Team B will be directed to occupy the required spaces. If there is a delay, a team technical foul is charged to team B (4-47).

Posted for anybody reading that might not be a basketball official and doesn't have the required books. It's that easy and simple.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Judtech

Yeah, I saw that. Subsequent posts had B or A shooting with that team huddling, that is where I was confused

It was MTD Sr. that had A and B mixed up completely back in post #5. He went back and corrected it, but it lives on in my post #8 in my response to that post of his.

Mark is pretty damn good at confusing people. Gotta give him that.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

NFHS Casebook Play 10.1.5 SITUATION C (b):
The calling official has reported the foul and proceeds to his/her proper position for the first of two free throws awarded to A1. Two B players are not occupying the first two marked lane spaces next to the end line as required.
RULING: Team B will be directed to occupy the required spaces. If there is a delay, a team technical foul is charged to team B (4-47).

Posted for anybody reading that might not be a basketball official and doesn't have the required books. It's that easy and simple.

JR:

I know that R1-S1-A5 is about Team Technical Fouls. AND, I will agree with you, hat under certain circumstances the penalty for the infraction in the OP is a team TF could be the correct penalty, BUT, R4-S47-A2 and R10-S1-A5d do not apply to the OP.

R4-S47-A2 and R10-S1-A5d were adopted in response to teams huddling in the free throw lane causing a delay in the administering of the free throw(s). This is not the case in the OP; the huddle in the OP was NOT in the free throw lane.

YES, there is a delay in the ball becoming live, but it is caused by player(s) intentionally NOT occupying the first lane space(s), or a HC instructing his player(s) to NOT occupying the first lane space(s). And depending upon the situation it could be a TF charged to the player(s), the HC, or to the team. AND, if it is charged to the team it is not because of an infraction of R4-S47-A2 and R10-S1-A5d.

MTD, Sr.

[Judtech]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

It was MTD Sr. that had A and B mixed up completely back in post #5. He went back and corrected it, but it lives on in my post #8 in my response to that post of his.

Mark is pretty damn good at confusing people. Gotta give him that.

shows what I get for using one of your posts as a reference!

[Nevadaref]

MTD,
You are not correct on this. Now please stop.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

JR:

I know that R1-S1-A5 is about Team Technical Fouls.

And that's all that you know. Your lack of understanding of a definitive rules reference is appalling...but hardly surprising. It's a waste of time discussing this any further with you.