Delay of Game

[Daryl H. Long]

TEAM TECHNICAL.

My answer to MTD early this afternoon when he called me with this play was TEAM TECHNICAL but I did not have rule book handy. Tonight I looked it up.

Final answer: TEAM TECHNICAL.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Daryl H. Long

TEAM TECHNICAL.

My answer to MTD early this afternoon when he called me with this play was TEAM TECHNICAL but I did not have rule book handy. Tonight I looked it up.

Final answer: TEAM TECHNICAL.

Yabut... does he believe you?

Obviously not, Rev.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Yabut... does he believe you?

Obviously not, Rev.

Oh, He believes I am Right. He told me so.

The problem is He does not believe he is Wrong.

[Camron Rust]

I think what Mark is saying is that there may be unsportsmanlike behavior that is connected with players not filling the lane spaces can be penalized with an individual T under the unsportsmanlike rules....and that he'd only address the greater infraction...no double jeopardy.

This philosophy is not unlike a player making contact with another player with his/her elbow....it could be rule just about anything---incidental, common/PC, intentional, or flagrant---depending on the magnitude and circumstances. We have case plays on that topic that suggest one or the other but they don't preclude other rulings as the situation may warrant.

However, I do agree that it should be a team T in nearly all cases, but could imagine a situation where a T on the coach might be deserved and applicable...after which there would be no need to have the spaces filled....thus no team T for not having them filled.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

However, I do agree that it should be a team T in nearly all cases, but could imagine a situation where a T on the coach might be deserved and applicable...after which there would be no need to have the spaces filled....thus no team T for not having them filled.

+1, and I think you're quite charitable.

You're looking for a fig leaf for MTD here, and I'm reluctant to snatch it away. But I think we're talking about 2 situations here: in the OP, the proper penalty is a team T.

In the situation you're envisioning, the coach earns his own T before the team T can be assessed -- fair enough, I can picture that, too. If I go over to roust them and he utters magic words, then he'll get his dessert early. And I agree, that would eliminate the need to assess a team T for not filling the lane spaces. But this really amounts to changing the subject, because it's no longer the OP.

Moreover, that's not how I read MTD: he's not saying that there are distinct situations, one where a team T is appropriate and one where a direct on the coach is. He's saying that it's official's judgment whether to assess a team T or a direct on the coach for one and the same act: not filling the lane spaces. And that still seems wrong to me.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by mbyron

+1, and I think you're quite charitable.

You're looking for a fig leaf for MTD here, and I'm reluctant to snatch it away. But I think we're talking about 2 situations here: in the OP, the proper penalty is a team T.

In the situation you're envisioning, the coach earns his own T before the team T can be assessed -- fair enough, I can picture that, too. If I go over to roust them and he utters magic words, then he'll get his dessert early. And I agree, that would eliminate the need to assess a team T for not filling the lane spaces. But this really amounts to changing the subject, because it's no longer the OP.

Moreover, that's not how I read MTD: he's not saying that there are distinct situations, one where a team T is appropriate and one where a direct on the coach is. He's saying that it's official's judgment whether to assess a team T or a direct on the coach for one and the same act: not filling the lane spaces. And that still seems wrong to me.

And +1 for the comments above.

Yes, you certainly could have an unsporting "T" on the coach before you assessed the team "T" for delay. And that would negate the necessity of team B having to fill the bottom 2 lane spots, thus also negating the need to assess the delay team "T". But that is a different situation entirely than the one laid out out in the original post.

The situation in the OP is covered definitively by the case play because they are both basically the exact same circumstances.

Note that I always try to look at these types of situations from the view of what my response would be if I had to respond for my association to a complaint about a call like this. And I can forsee such a complaint coming in if the "T" assessed to the head coach meant his disqualification and ejection, with the resultant suspension and fine. In this case, I would have no choice but to respond that a wrong interpretation was made by the calling official.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

However, I do agree that it should be a team T in nearly all cases, but could imagine a situation where a T on the coach might be deserved and applicable...after which there would be no need to have the spaces filled....thus no team T for not having them filled.

"Coach, I gotta have 2 players occupy the first two spaces."

"I'm talking to my team. Get the hell out of my face."

"Never mind, coach."

[WHACK]

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

NFHS R4-S47-A2 states:
“A warning to a team for delay is an administrative procedure by an official which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the coach for huddle by either team and contact with the free thrower, as in R10-S1-A5d.”


NFHS R10-S1-A5d states:
“A team shall not allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts: 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.”


The OP stated that the huddle was at Team B’s bench. That means that R4-S47-A2 and NFHS R10-S1-A5d are not the rules that apply to this situation nor are they the rules that apply to NFHS Casebook Play 10.1.5 Situation C(b).


R4-S47-A2 was adopted (as well as R10-S1-A5d) in response to the actions described in R10-S1-A5d.


MTD, Sr.


P.S. I had a very long courier run last night and did not get home until 09:30amEDT. MTD, Jr., and I have a baseball game to umpire at 06:30pmEDT tonight, and I have a courier run to make at midnight. It is almost 11:25amEDT, and way past my bedtime. I do not anticipate resonding to this thread until at least Sunday night because of my courier, basketball officiating, and baseball/softball umpiring schedules for the remainder of the week. Everybody have a wonderful first week of Summer.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NFHS R10-S1-A5d states:
“A team shall not allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts: 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.”

Whatinthehell does R10-1-5(d) have to do with anything? It's completely freaking irrelevant. The relevant rule used for the case play is R10-1-5(b)--"delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put in play". And any case book plays labelled from A-X just refer back to the section and article ONLY, as in Rule 10-Section 1, Article 5. They do NOT relate in any way to the different parts of Article 5.

You should know something like that; it's pretty basic. But unfortunately you obviously don't know, so you're still trying to come up with some stoopid and illogical alternatives to avoid admitting that you didn't know the correct rule in the first place.

Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, when the whole world tells you that you're wrong, there might just be a possibility that you actually are wrong?

Sad!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I do not anticipate resonding to this thread until at least Sunday night

That's good news.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's good news.

Snark alert!

[IUgrad92]

I think this is a prime example of "over-reading" the rule book / "over-analyzing" the play situation. I can't think of too many play situation rulings that cannot be explained with a handful of sentences, especially when you can find a case play that's almost verbatim.

What I want to know is, who has taken the real MTD and what have they done with him? Please bring him back!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I do not anticipate resonding to this thread until at least Sunday night.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

That's good news.

Close the thread Sunday afternoon?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

NFHS R4-S47-A2 states:
“A warning to a team for delay is an administrative procedure by an official which is recorded in the scorebook by the scorer and reported to the coach for huddle by either team and contact with the free thrower, as in R10-S1-A5d.”


NFHS R10-S1-A5d states:
“A team shall not allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts: 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.”


The OP stated that the huddle was at Team B’s bench. That means that R4-S47-A2 and NFHS R10-S1-A5d are not the rules that apply to this situation nor are they the rules that apply to NFHS Casebook Play 10.1.5 Situation C(b).


R4-S47-A2 was adopted (as well as R10-S1-A5d) in response to the actions described in R10-S1-A5d.


MTD, Sr.

All of that is 100% correct. The proper rules citation for this situation is 10-1-5b, not 10-1-5d. That is why it is correct to verbally instruct the players to occupy the lane-spaces and then follow with a technical foul if they fail to do as directed. It is not correct to assess an administrative warning for delay against the team in this instance. Nor is it correct to charge an individual with a technical foul. This is clearly covered as a team technical foul by 10-1-5b and the accompanying Casebook reference.

Unfortunately, some fool with the NFHS put 4-47 as the reference to the Casebook play. That should not have been done.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Jfpdi

He said that may be the rule but that is not the way it is done.

This was the most disturbing line in the OP. If I had a partner tell me that, I'd smack him upside the head with a frying pan.