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"

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.

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

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.

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.)

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

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.

We're talking about 10.1.5 Situation C.

A review of the thread so far, or lets make a short story long.
 

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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

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

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.

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. :)

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

The problem is He does not believe he is Wrong.

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.

+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.

"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]

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.

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!

That's good news.

Snark alert! :D

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just A Thought ???
 

Close the thread Sunday afternoon?

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.

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.

http://www.invalidgriffin.com/jackle/chara/chelsea.jpg