Delay of game tech???

[Rich1]

There is a difference of opinion in our group about technicals after a warning for delay.

According to 9-2-10, 10-1-5c, & 10.1.5e its refered to as a "team tech". But 10-3-5d says that delaying the game by "repeated violations of the throw in as in 9-2-10" by a player are "player techs". Also, the chart on page 70 in the rule book lists delay under both "administrative" and "player" technicals.

The prevailing arguement here is that the delay on a throw in is "team" and its only other types of delay (withholding the ball, tossing ball across gym, etc.) charged to the "player" because they are more aggregious. However, there seems to be no such differentiation in the rule or case books.

So, I humbly come before this assembly of wise and experienced officials to request the sage advice, opinions, interpretations and musings upon this matter of great debate. What say you...

[Coach Bill]

Originally Posted by Rich1

There is a difference of opinion in our group about technicals after a warning for delay.

According to 9-2-10, 10-1-5c, & 10.1.5e its refered to as a "team tech". But 10-3-5d says that delaying the game by "repeated violations of the throw in as in 9-2-10" by a player are "player techs". Also, the chart on page 70 in the rule book lists delay under both "administrative" and "player" technicals.

The prevailing arguement here is that the delay on a throw in is "team" and its only other types of delay (withholding the ball, tossing ball across gym, etc.) charged to the "player" because they are more aggregious. However, there seems to be no such differentiation in the rule or case books.

So, I humbly come before this assembly of wise and experienced officials to request the sage advice, opinions, interpretations and musings upon this matter of great debate. What say you...

I'm gonna guess. I think the player tech would be for repeated violations by the same player. Everything else would be team T. Tossing the ball across the gym sounds like an unsportsmanlike T, rather than delay of game. If it was the first time it happened, I don't think you'd give a warning.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

I'm gonna guess. I think the player tech would be for repeated violations by the same player. Everything else would be team T. Tossing the ball across the gym sounds like an unsportsmanlike T, rather than delay of game. If it was the first time it happened, I don't think you'd give a warning.

It is a delay of game T, but as BktBallRef notes, it's a different rule than 9-2-10 and is a player T with no warnings involved.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Rich1

There is a difference of opinion in our group about technicals after a warning for delay.

According to 9-2-10, 10-1-5c, & 10.1.5e its reffered to as a "team tech". But 10-3-5d says that delaying the game by "repeated violations of the throw in as in 9-2-10" by a player are "player techs". Also, the chart on page 70 in the rule book lists delay under both "administrative" and "player" technicals.

The prevailing arguement here is that the delay on a throw in is "team" and its only other types of delay (withholding the ball, tossing ball across gym, etc.) charged to the "player" because they are more aggregious. However, there seems to be no such differentiation in the rule or case books.

So, I humbly come before this assembly of wise and experienced officials to request the sage advice, opinions, interpretations and musings upon this matter of great debate. What say you...

If the defender reaches through the boundary plane and touches the ball while the thrower possesses it or when it's being passed to the thrower's OOB teammate, it's a technical foul assessed to the player and a team warning for delay for violating the plane if one hadn't previously been assessed. That's the only time under 9-2-10 that a T is assessed directly to the player.

A player can be assessed a T for delay of game for failing to pass the ball directly to an official but that's not a 9-2-10 issue. Also, this is not one of the delay of game technical fouls that first requires a warning.

[Adam]

Repeated violations are not normal situations. Done it's a team foul normally, a team could conceivably continue to break this rule in some sort of tantrum. I see this wording as justification for escalating this to a player T as a step to eliminate the problem before it gets to forfeit territory.

[HokiePaul]

Originally Posted by Adam

Repeated violations are not normal situations. Done it's a team foul normally, a team could conceivably continue to break this rule in some sort of tantrum. I see this wording as justification for escalating this to a player T as a step to eliminate the problem before it gets to forfeit territory.

This is how I understand it. It's a team T in just about every situation that is likely to occur.

[Raymond]

You guys are a bunch of jinxes. Yesterday is the first time ever that I've had to call a T for a player touching the ball while still in the hands of the thrower-in.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

You guys are a bunch of jinxes. Yesterday is the first time ever that I've had to call a T for a player touching the ball while still in the hands of the thrower-in.

It's your own fault. Don't blame us.

Oh, and let me guess, "Don't we get a warning first?"