Rule Citation - DOG or Technical Foul?

[Blindolbat]

Here's the situation - Team A is down 4 and makes a 3 point basket to bring the deficit down to 1 point, but there is now under 5 seconds on the clock with the clock running after made basket. Team A is out of timeouts. Team A coach has player pick up ball and throw it to keep Team B from getting the ball and stop the clock for what would be the 1st delay warning in this game.
I swear that you cannot have a delay of game warning at under 5 seconds in the game and this is an automatic technical foul call in this situation, but I cannot find the rule citation to support this. Am I just imagining this, or can someone help me out with the rule?

[APG]

Read the comment from case book play 9.2.10 Situation A

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by Blindolbat

I swear that you cannot have a delay of game warning at under 5 seconds in the game and this is an automatic technical foul call in this situation

This is not true. The rule applies when there is 5 seconds or less and the clock is running. You can still have a DOG warning if the situation occurs with the clock stopped.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by johnny d

This is not true. The rule applies when there is 5 seconds or less and the clock is running. You can still have a DOG warning if the situation occurs with the clock stopped.

Nevermind

[RookieDude]

As APG so correctly replied and supplied...

Ignore it.

You asked if it would be a DOG or a Technical foul.

Neither...ignore the thrown ball and let the game end with Team B winning.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

As APG so correctly replied and supplied...

Ignore it.

You asked if it would be a DOG or a Technical foul.

Neither...ignore the thrown ball and let the game end with Team B winning.

The case play also allows us to go straight to the T if the action actually interferes with an attempt to throw in the ball.

Honestly, if it's just B1 stepping out of bounds to try to draw the call, I'll ignore it. If, however, B1 grabs the ball and tosses it into the stands, I can see going straight to the T. If I can, though, I'm just going to let the clock run out.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Adam

The case play also allows us to go straight to the T if the action actually interferes with an attempt to throw in the ball.

Honestly, if it's just B1 stepping out of bounds to try to draw the call, I'll ignore it. If, however, B1 grabs the ball and tosses it into the stands, I can see going straight to the T. If I can, though, I'm just going to let the clock run out.

That is correct Adam...

I'm leaning toward ignoring it to save all the dramatics...if a Coach complains because his team didn't get the T to stop the clock...I'm quickly selling it with the "in my judgement, interfering with the ball was a tactic to stop the clock".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

That is correct Adam...

I'm leaning toward ignoring it to save all the dramatics...if a Coach complains because his team didn't get the T to stop the clock...I'm quickly selling it with the "in my judgement, interfering with the ball was a tactic to stop the clock".

Yup. Or, "Coach, you only gave me two options by rule. I didn't think I needed to call a T here, so I chose the other option."

Of course, he'll have a hard time getting an answer out of the back of my head.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Nevermind

what?

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Adam

Of course, he'll have a hard time getting an answer out of the back of my head.

lol...true, that is probably going to happen more often than not, in this situation.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by johnny d

what?

Nothing, I misread what you wrote.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RookieDude

That is correct Adam...

I'm leaning toward ignoring it to save all the dramatics...if a Coach complains because his team didn't get the T to stop the clock...I'm quickly selling it with the "in my judgement, interfering with the ball was a tactic to stop the clock".

Would you also ignore it, if the trailing team which is out of TOs requested one?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Would you also ignore it, if the trailing team which is out of TOs requested one?

So would you not apply 9.2.10A?

Added:
Just realized a coach down by one in this situation may just benefit from calling the excessive TO, taking the T, and defending division line throw-in down by 3 with 5 seconds left.

[RookieDude]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Would you also ignore it, if the trailing team which is out of TOs requested one?

Do you mean would I SEE/HEAR the REQUEST for a TO?

Different than the OP...but, a fair question.

9.2.10 Sit. A COMMENT does not address an excessive TO situation with less than 5 seconds in the game and the clock running.

Therefore...if I see/hear the TO request in time...Give the trailing team their TO at the expense of a Technical foul. 5-11-6

Having said that...a Coach does not ALWAYS get a TO request GRANTED just because he/she REQUESTED one. (Again, different than the OP)