Quote:
Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Comment: In situations with the clock running and five or less seconds left in the game, a throw-in plane violation or interfering with the ball following a goal should be ignored if its only purpose is to stop the clock. However, if the tactic in any way interferes with the throwers efforts to make a throw-in, a technical foul for delay shall be called even though no previous warning had been issued.
JR
I read this as two independent sentences regarding a five seconds left situation.
Sentence 1, the intent is to stop the clock. This would be the situation where A is behind, has no TOs left, makes shot with less than 5 seconds remaining, and has no recourse but to put the ball into the bleachers and hope you blow your whistle, cause B ain't gonna inbound the ball. why do I say this? Clearly, A has no interest in stopping the clock with less than 5 seconds if they have the lead. This is to prevent A from forcing B to inbound with less than five on the clock and the clock running.
Sentence 2, the situation is different. We may have a tie or A in the lead, and A doesn't want B to get a good inbounds and a chance to score. So they interfere with a thrower's attempt to make a throw-in. Not sure they have done that if there is no thrower - all they have done is given an instant clock stoppage to B, which gives them more chance to get a good throw in. That was how I read it, but not sure what NF is saying.
|
The NFHS is telling us not to allow a team to benefit from getting the clock stopped. So,in Sentence #1,you ignore the throw-in plane violation,or batting the ball,and just let the clock run out. In sentence #2,you call the immediate T on A instead of issuing a warning first,if you want to.In both cases,you are making sure that they won't benefit,as per this casebook play.
Fri Jan 31, 2003, 04:28pm
Threaded Mode
