Delay of Game
 

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. I expect since my partner is nearer the team that is in the huddle that he will notify the coach and the table of a delay warning. Instead he turns to me and says 2 shots it doesn't matter. Implying that it is o.k for me to ignore the 2 empty lane spots or the 1st shot. I tell hin get the team out of the huddle. During a time out he tells me that the coach of the delaying team is a varsity coach and the coach knew what he was doing annd that he wanted me to give the shooter the ball so that if she misssed the first shot he would call a violation and allow her to shoot again. I told him the call is a delay of game with the score keeper making a note in the book and that if there was another delay it was a technical and the other team shoots 2 and gets the ball. He said that may be the rule but that is not the way it is done.
I have only been doing this for 4 years but never heard this.

I don't see a question, but both you and your partner were wrong.

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.

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.).

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

Just an aside, why would the defending coach even do this?

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.......:rolleyes:

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. ;)

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? :D

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

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.

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.

Sheer gobbleydegook again, as usual. A whole bunch of meaningless crap with no rules backing at all anywhere to back up your conjectures. You're trying to apply rules that aren't applicable and you're completely ignoring a definitive case book play.

Here's a little logic for you to think about. That case book play cited that covered the play being discussed EXACTLY as it happened was 10.1.5SitC(b). Note that the "10.1.5" refers to the rule being referenced by the case play-->rule 10-1-5. You'd think that maybe you'd have known sumthin' like that after all the years you've been officiating. And if you take a look at rule 10-1-5(b), that states:
A TEAM shall not delay the game by preventing the ball from being made promptly live or from being put put in play."
Note that the listed PENALTY for R10-1-5 is a TEAM technical foul.

Do you really think it's logic to cite non-applicable and completely unrelated nonsense above like the conduct of bench personnel? The additional penalty for a "T" on bench personnel is an INDIRECT technical foul on the head coach, NOT a direct "T". 'Splain to me again how that can be relevant in any way to you wanting to charge a head coach with a DIRECT "T".

You're completely wrong and you have NO rules backing that will prove otherwise. It's that freaking simple, no matter how you try to spin it.

And I've no doubt at all that you screwed up that call 5 years ago either.:)

You sureasheck don't help the people that come here trying to learn something when you ignore a plainly written rule, make up your very own rule with nothing to back it up, and then try to pass your nonsense off as gospel.

It won't suprise some that I am now confused.:D
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 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) I am not sure what the difference would be between the team coming out of a TO or just huddling, would you still follow the procedure?
Also, the case book cites team "T's" to be given when team members are huddling and delaying the game. Again, I am not sure what the difference would be when a coach calls his team over and delays. Personaly, I would be inclined to tell the coach I need the two players on the lane. If they continue to huddle, I would be inclined to T the coach b/c it is now the COACH causing the delay and not the players. I would have no problem writing this up if it was their second "T" and had to leave. Any game video would show that the coach was warned and had opportunity to break the huddle. It would be up to THEM to explain to their AD/Principal why they didnt' comply with the officials request. Especially, if they already HAD a "T"