Delay of Game Situation
 

I had a situation come up during a varsity scrimmage that I'd like to run by the collective wisdom of the forum.

Two fast breaking teams with about two minutes left in the period, score is not all that close. A15 goes up for a successful lay up and on the way down, puts up his hand which the ball deflects off of and squirts away down the end line a few feet.

In my judgment, A15 did this as a reaction to keep the ball from hitting him in the face and did not intentionally interfere with the ball. Based upon the reaction of the defense, I don't think it interefered with a fast break opportunity either.

The head coach for the defense was incensed and did not care for my explanation after the the period had ended. He wanted to the delay of game called and said it did not matter if the player was protecting himself or not.

What do you all think? Does he have a valid argument? Do you make any allowance for a player protecting himself in a situation like that?

Incidentally, a three hour scrimmage with three teams and only two officials is not a lot of fun but we got a lot of reps in. :eek:

I wouldn't call this, but local listings may be different. The rule doesn't say it has to be intentional, but that's generally how I've seen it called. At most, an apparently accidental event like yours would result in a quick word with the offender.

If you judged it incidental then a no call is right in my opinion. Now if out of taunting or showing off for his great layup his smacks/taps the ball and it delays the defense from the throw-in then we have another story, again in my opinion.

The head coach may be incensed, but he's not got a leg to stand on. If the game is not delayed, it is not proper to "call' delay of game. Move on, citizens; nothing to see here.

Did you mean "accidental?"

I think he means incidental. The player purposely contacted the ball, but his (judged) intent was to protect himself. So...not accidental, but incidental.

I do not agree.

Delay of game infractions are not meant to be applied to cases where the ball drops thorugh the net and ricochets off a player who had no intent to deflect it away from being ready to play. If a ball comes through an bounces off of a player who either didn't see it coming or was only protecting it from hitting them in the face (or similar), it should not be a violation.

You are right.

I figure I'm allowed one dumb post per day. And this one would be it for today. :o

Just to add to what Camron wrote, I consider "reflexive" to be, for purposes of this rule, to be accidental.

And do you consider "incidental" and "accidental" touching of the ball to have different implications as regards the delay rule?

It's a straight judgment call, Welpe, as to whether the shooter interfered with the ball to gain an advantage. Don't second-guess your judgment on the play. And the coach does deserve an explanation. What he doesn't deserve though is an explanation that he has to like or agree with.

To me: incidental = no advantage

So while the implications are very close, they aren't identical. If there are repeated accidental hits that have an effect, I'll have a word with the offender about avoiding the ball.

Thanks everyone. Wish I had someone to see it so they could tell me if my judgment was correct but I think it was...of course. ;)

No delay, but you have to like a coach that is going to complain to you about that delay in a 3 hour scrimmage that you're working 2 man. Might be a good time to practice resumption of play procedures after a T?

How much would you say that intent comes into play for each of the four D.O.G. warnings?