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?

Good question.
1. Players don't huddle accidentally.
2. Water doesn't get spilled deliberately.
3. Defenders rarely cross the plane deliberately.
4. Hitting the ball may be the only one where it matters.

Intent doesn't come into play in any way for any of the DOG warnings. You penalize the act when it occurs and you recognize it.

So the ball comes out of the net and hits an unsuspecting player from the scoring team in the leg, you're going to issue a DOG?

Why?:confused:

Don't we still have to call it even if we didn't think the defender meant it?

I've just never seen it called when contact was inadvertent. Not that it happens that way often; it's hard to not see it coming.

I'm not.

The word interfere implies (to me, in this instance) some intentional act (including potentially some willful inaction).

Good point by both you and Snaqs. I spoke too hastily. If the ball gets kicked away...... under a bleacher, whatever....you blow the whistle to stop the clock. But if you also feel the kick was intentional to delay the throw-in and gain an advantage, you should issue the DOG warning at the same time. Intent does play a part in that situation.

I stand rightfully corrected.

I was going to post exactly this advice, but I couldn't find anything in the book that permits stopping the clock to retrieve a ball that gets away.

5-8-2c

Gracias.

Case book play 4.42.3(a) along with the rule that Bob cited.

Merci.

Shut up.

Well, somebody got out of bed on the wrong side, I see.

That implies there's a correct side, one which is easier and leads to a better day-long mood. Hmmm.

Well, somebody got out of bed on the logic-chopping side, I see. :p

That implies that there is an illogical....never mind. :D

Oh and delay of game warning to Snaqs.

Play nice, boys.

Hey Snaq, when you say that item four is "the only one where it matters," does "it" = intent? If so, wouldn't item one require intent, too?

No valid argument. Of course one gets an allowance to prevent the ball from hitting them in the face. You could tell the coach that you'll be more diligent on stopping the clock to allow his team to gather the ball, but you won't penalize a team to prevent a ball from hitting a face.

Yes.

Not really, because if you see a huddle, you can assume intent, IMO.

The correct side is the one that isn't against a bedroom wall.

The correct side is the side that has been assigned to me by the boss.

LOL

Anyway, looking at the four again...

1. Players don't huddle accidentally. = intent
2. Water doesn't get spilled deliberately. = usually no intent, though this rule came from an intentional, sneaky nature
3. Defenders rarely cross the plane deliberately. = no intent/usually reckless
4. Hitting the ball may be the only one where it matters. = intent

I generally agree with the breakdown, but it can't be the "only one that matters" if there's intent involved in the huddle too, right?

I think he was saying that #4 is the only one where you need to determine intent.

It's either assumed or not needed in the others.

It doesn't "matter" if it's never absent. The only one of the four where intent is both required and potentially absent is #4.
1. I've never seen them huddle by accident, so it's not relevant in practice.
2. Water on the floor will get penalized regardless of intent; it could be accidental or it could be intentional. Doesn't matter.
3. Same as #2. It's usually an accident, but occasionally it's intentional. Either way, unless there's less than 5 seconds on a running clock, you penalize it.
4. Can happen by accident or intent, but typically only penalized when there is inent. Note, the player may hit the ball in an attempt to be helpful, but if he purposefully hits the ball and it delays the throw-in; violation.

The boss has both sides here. I've been banished from the Queendom because of my sleeping habits.

tmi.

The boss here has graciously given me fully one half of the that I may inhabit as I see fit. It seemed fair at the time. Too bad I didn't realize sooner the implications of her keeping the top half for herself. :(

My boss has been known to change sides in the middle of the night.

Got it. As BJ figured out, you were talking about determination. Thanks.