Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 

9.3.3 SITUATION D: The score is tied 60-60 with four seconds remaining in the
game. A1 has a fast break and is near the free-throw line on his/her way to an
uncontested lay-up. B5 running down the court near the sideline, intentionally
runs out of bounds in the hopes of getting a leaving-the-floor violation called.
RULING: B5's intentional violation should be ignored and A1's activity should
continue without interruption. COMMENT: Non-contact, away from the ball, illegal
defensive violations (i.e. excessively swinging the elbows, leaving the floor for
an unauthorized reason) specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a
period or take away a clear advantageous position by the offense should be temporarily
ignored. The defensive team should not benefit from the tactic. If time is
not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul
for unsporting behavior. (10-1-8)

I also have a problem with Nevadaref's interpretation containing the word "only", and would like to see some more discussion regarding same.

Was the attempted trip specifically designed to stop the clock near the end of a period, or to take away a clear advantageous position by the offense? If so, this case play (9.3.3 SITUATION D) certainly might apply. If not, we might need another citation allowing the official to temporarily ignore the flagrant technical foul.

10.4.1 SITUATION F, as interpreted by Nevadaref, only applies to the bench, but should it also apply to a player on the floor?

Also, what does this, from 9.3.3 SITUATION D (below), mean?

... If time is not a factor, the defense should be penalized with the violation or a technical foul for unsporting behavior.

My head is starting to hurt. I still think that we should delay the flagrant technical foul for the attempted trip, but I can't come up with a good case play, or rule interpretation, to defend my opinion.

Why delay it?

If you're going flagrant on this play -- I know some aren't and some are -- are two free throws, possession and disqualification of the offender somehow a benefit to the defense?!

What coach in his right mind is going to say, "But we had a fast-break opportunity! You took it away from us in return for two lousy free throws, the ball right back in our hands and one of their players DQd?"

Yeah, yeah, yeah, EVERY coach will say that, sadly. I know ... save me that speech.

But, as is generally the case, they'd be acting irrationally/unreasonably.

Actually, I have had a coach say exactly that. Not those exact words and not all that vigorously, but he did question the timing of me calling a T on the opposing coach when his team was on a undefended break away. It was a big game...state tourney quarter final so it could have really mattered (but it did't). I told him I should have delayed the call but I just reacted to the behavior of the coach instead.

What coach? I think a large number of coaches will say that...they want the result of the fastbreak...AND whatever happened on the backend.

Some ...
 

Because there are two casebook plays that say to delay calling some fouls, or violations. The key word being "some", not necessarily for an attempted trip, but it's still worth discussing here on the Forum.

I agree. Had there been a scoring chance on this play, I would like to think I would have had a delayed whistle. But in was in the backcourt at the free throw line. I think this was a play that needed a whistle on it immediately.

There are two case book plays about this. One instructs officials to delay whistling a technical foul on the opposing coach or bench personnel when there is a fastbreak situation. The other instructs officials to ignore an attempt to get a non-contact violation that is off-ball called during the opponents fastbreak situation.

There are no other instances listed in the case book to justify delaying a whistle for a foul or violation. Therefore there is no rules justification to delay a contact foul or a non-contact foul by a player under NFHS rules.

I'm having a hard time seeing giving a flagrant technical for an attempted trip. I suppose if the player is swinging his leg to try and leg whip his opponent, that would make sense.

Trying to just grab him with his hands probably isn't going to look like much other than an uncoordinated flail. I could see perhaps a T here, especially if he's been a problem player, but on a whiff it'll probably be a no call and a strong word first time out.

The case book is not an exhaustive list nor is it establishing rules. It is merely giving examples of plays and how they should be called. The play in question is between the two cases you reference and could conceivably be ruled either way based on those two cases.

One says to ignore violations, in general, but penalize as unsportsmanlike if needed. The other says to delay the call for a technical foul on a coach. It doesn't say to do so only for a coach nor only for a technical foul. It is an example.

It would not be unreasonable to interpret the cited cases as supporting the delay of the call for an intentional or flagrant foul.

It may or may not be wise to delay addressing such an intense type of foul, but the cited cases don't exactly say one way or the other.

If a coach or player is being a real pain I will sometimes delay a tech if the other team has the ball until they score or miss.

Yup. Or just delay until you get a minute to blow the ball dead and talk to the coach/player, maybe warn the coach (if you and/or your commissioner are in to that tool), etc.

Have done this many times.

(unnecessary personal shot deleted) And you are correct, fighting doesn't need contact and if the player who allegedly was allegedly tripped retaliated and took a swing at the defender on the ground, they both would be charged with fighting as his act caused the opponent to retaliate, regardless if he grabbed his foot or not. Again, that's not the what happened. OP wasn't even sure if there was contact. Without contact, I still have nothing regardless of so called intent. I'd talk to coach and let him handle it.

Years ago I gave a flagrant T to a kid based on what I thought was intent. Still regret it as in hindsight, I'm not 100% sure. Usually the only T's I regret are the ones I don't issue.

This isn't about fighting. It's about an attempted trip. You would seriously consider a flagrant T. I wouldn't. ;)

Until I see a video, I won't commit either way. Tripping a player intentionally is dangerous. I'm most likely going with a T, but flagrant is an option. Would I call it? Probably not. But I'd consider it.

(reference to personal shot deleted)

Now if you want to be precise, your reply above contains a generality which should be cleaned up. Not just any act which causes an opponent to retaliate by fighting would get classified by rule as fighting itself, but rather only an unsporting act which causes that retaliation. So if an official did not deem the attempted trip to be unsporting or an actual trip involving contact wasn't ruled flagrant on its own (perhaps the official only charged a normal personal foul or an intentional personal foul), then any fighting retaliation would not cause the original fouler to be automatically DQ'd by rule.