[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by billyu2

So if all of this is true, how much time did you and your partner put back on the clock?

BillyU:

I am sorry for just now answering your question. I am not trying to evade your question. The game was between two Class D schools (very small schools and there was only one game clock and naturally it was on the ball behind me and directly above me. We could not put time back on the clock because we did not have definite knowledge. But the time it took for my partner to turn his head away from the Court to see who was requesting the TO was very short but still long enough for Visitor's PG to release the 3-Point FGA. And how could a NE Ohio Boy doubt another NE Ohio Boy?

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

If you're assigner is that hardcore about the rule book then by all means go with it. But I've been calling "retroactive" timeouts for all 11 years I've officiated, and not once has that been discussed let alone have I been reprimanded in any way. Perhaps because granting those is a hell of a lot less important than not pissing off coaches leading to game management issues.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Bryan:

Since women's college basketball (NGWAS and NCAA Women's Rules) has always allowed HCs to request TOs, I called "retroactive" TOs for the entire 34 years that I officiated women's college basketball, and when NFHS and NCAA Men's Rules adopted the NCAA Women's Rule I continued to call it that way at the H.S. level and men's jr. college level.

I agree with you that it is one part: game management and one part: Not in the all of the 46 years that I officiated at any level has there been a Interpretation, Casebook Play, or Approved Ruling telling officials grant "retroactive" TOs. I chose the word "retroactive" because I believe that it best describes the situation because I do not believe the phrase "delayed dead ball" does not accurately describes the situation, then again it may.

And speaking of game management:, here is the Play that you and I are thinking of:

Play: Game tied with less than ten seconds left in the 4th QT. A1 has PC of the Ball in Team A's Mid-Court Area (and for those who are wondering what the hell is the MCA just go with me for a moment) OtheT. C is TS. A-HC, who is standing out of our of eye sight of the C and requests a TO to set up THE game winning play. The C glances at Team A's Bench to verify that it is in fact A-HC making the request. In the split second after A-HC has made his TO request and before C can sound his/her whistle, B1 steals the Ball from A1 and goes in for the game "winning" layup.

Can one imagine the "carnage" that would ensue if the Game Officials said "Too bad Team A, even though A-HC requested a TO while A1 still had PC, since B1 stole the Ball before we could sound our whistles to grant A-HC's TO request we have to allow B1's FG."

Yes, the Rule one way for the Ball to become Dead is when an Officials sounds his/her whistle to grant a TO. But I do not believe the Rules intent is to allow such a situation as in the Play I described.

MTD, Sr.