Referee Magazine - wrong or right?

[Mark Padgett]

The new issue of NASO's Referee Magazine has a discussion regarding delay of game situations. In one of the scenarios, they discuss interfering with the ball after a made basket. They state that if the delay is "intentional", we are to immediately call a technical foul regardless of whether or not there was a prior warning. The rule references they give for this only support the standard procedure, and do not mention a technical for intentional delay.

There are only two things I can think of to support their statements. One is that we have the authority at any time to judge an action as unsportsmanlike conduct and issue a T. The other is that there may be some change for the new season since "delay" is a point of emphasis in the 2000-2001 rules and I have not yet seen the new points of emphasis spelled out.

Any thoughts?

[JC]

Haven't gotten my magazine yet, but I do remember an NF case on this where a T is given without a warning. The basis is that the offending team gains an advantage.
The case: A1 scores with 4 or 5 seconds left in game (perhaps no TO's), still down by 1. Team B will win if they do not inbound the ball, so A2 knocks the ball away such that the official must stop the clock to retrieve the ball. If you only warn them, they now have a chance to win. We can probably think of other situations in the last few seconds where a warning would help the offender. I think the intent of the rule is to penalize with a T in this case (or ignore if possible so you don't have to stop the clock).

Not a problem anymore in NCAA with clock stopping after made field goal at end of 2nd half.

JC

[Todd VandenAkker]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Padgett:
There are only two things I can think of to support their statements. One is that we have the authority at any time to judge an action as unsportsmanlike conduct and issue a T. The other is that there may be some change for the new season since "delay" is a point of emphasis in the 2000-2001 rules and I have not yet seen the new points of emphasis spelled out.
Any thoughts?

---

I don't know about a change in ruling, such as in the points of emphasis, but I suspect your first inclination is on target. If the action is so obviously intentional to prevent the ball from becoming promptly alive again, it could easily be deemed unsportsmanlike and issued a "T." Or in the last second scenario mentioned by JC, even if less "obvious," it could again very well be a purposeful effort to gain an advantage. In that case, I like the suggestion of not blowing the whistle and letting the clock run out (if the official has really good game awareness). Otherwise, I suppose a "T" could be in order, but it wouldn't be the best option from a game management standpoint, I think.

[Mark Padgett]

Since my original post, I have found out that there was a case about 3 years ago that described this situation and said you should call the technical. The theory was that it was unsportsmanlike conduct and deserved a T.

I still think it would be tough to call without a prior warning, although I don't have any hesitation calling the technical for reaching across the boundary and touching the ball while it's still in the inbounders hands regardless of the situation, since that is clearly stated in the rules.

[Bart Tyson]

Mark, I got criticized at a camp for giving a T for touching the ball while in the hands of the player oob. He said, it is easy to call a violation, because generally the player reaches across the boundary once or twice before reaching over and touching the ball. His point was consider the game situation when making the call.

[Mark Padgett]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bart Tyson:
Mark, I got criticized at a camp for giving a T for touching the ball while in the hands of the player oob. He said, it is easy to call a violation, because generally the player reaches across the boundary once or twice before reaching over and touching the ball. His point was consider the game situation when making the call.

---

Bart - I have always used the theory that if the touching is part of a single continuous act of the reach, then you call it. If the defender was "pawing" at the ball even once before the movement that caused the touch, then you call the violation because it was a separate act that happened first. This theory has been supported at two camps I have attended.

Since these were the only two where it was discussed, I guess I can say it's been unanimous.

[MOFFICIAL]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Padgett:
Bart - I have always used the theory that if the touching is part of a single continuous act of the reach, then you call it. If the defender was "pawing" at the ball even once before the movement that caused the touch, then you call the violation because it was a separate act that happened first. This theory has been supported at two camps I have attended.

Since these were the only two where it was discussed, I guess I can say it's been unanimous.

---

I don't understand your reply Mark. Do you mean that if the defender touches the ball after "pawing" do you "T" him or warn him?

[slow_whistle]

Reaching across the oob line is a reportable delay of game warning. A second delay of game is a technical. Reaching over the line and grabbing an arm is an intentional foul and striking the ball is a technical foul. I don't see anything confusing about this. But then again....I have been humbled before. Good game management goes a long way. How many times do we see "reaching over the line" and actually stop the game and report it as a warning if it does not interfer with the inbounds play?

Mark, in the case u originally posted about the intentional delay of game that would be a tough call to call a Technical without first giving a delay of game warning. But, I can see the reasoning behind the unsportsmanship call which is a technical. Hopefully I will be at trail heading down the other way to become the new lead.....


[This message has been edited by slow_whistle (edited May 17, 2000).]

[Mark Padgett]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MOFFICIAL:
[/b]

---

I don't understand your reply Mark. Do you mean that if the defender touches the ball after "pawing" do you "T" him or warn him?[/B][/QUOTE]

Warn him, since the breaking of the plane was a separate act that came first. The reach that touched came second. I was trying to explain a situation where there was a reach without touching first, then a second reach that touched. I would blow the whistle and penalize the first action.

Hope that clarifies it.

[Bart Tyson]

Slow_Whistle, its true there are many times we see breaking of the plane. As long as nothing happens we try not to interrupt the game.

[PublicBJ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JC:
Not a problem anymore in NCAA with clock stopping after made field goal at end of 2nd half.

JC

---

No, I still see it as a problem, because they gain an advantage by having time to hustle down the court and set up their defense. Takes away the quick pass and fast break down the court.

------------------
Brian Johnson

[Richard Ogg]

We had this question on our exam last year. The point was that incidental contact drew a warning first. OTOH, if A1 makes a basket and A2 then knocks the ball into the stands, A2 just earned a T -- no warning.

It becomes a judgment call, but then we're expected to make those.