subs in?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by PG_Ref

5.8.3 SITUATION E:

A1 is dribbling the ball in his/her backcourt when: (a) the Team B head coach requests and is erroneously granted a time-out by an official; or (b) the Team A head coach is yelling "side out" offensive instructions to his/her team and the official stops play believing the coach requested a time-out.

RULING: In (a), Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was requested and granted; once granted it cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B. All privileges and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams. Play will resume with a Team A throw-in nearest to where play was stopped. In (b), an inadvertent whistle has occurred. Team A was not requesting a time-out, and therefore, should not be granted or charged with one. Play is resumed at the point of interruption. (4-36-1; 4-36-2a)

Well that is a change and I am glad because no one did that in good conscious. I never did that and would never do that moving forward when clearly the mistake is ours.

Peace

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well that is a change and I am glad because no one did that in good conscious. I never did that and would never do that moving forward when clearly the mistake is ours.

Peace

I think it's been in the book for 20 years at least.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think it's been in the book for 20 years at least.

It has not been that long as I had a conversation about this when I did not grant a timeout and a veteran told me about the casebook. This conversation took place in the 90s and did not change for some time as it was still in the book.

Peace

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It has not been that long as I had a conversation about this when I did not grant a timeout and a veteran told me about the casebook. This conversation took place in the 90s and did not change for some time as it was still in the book.

Peace

If somebody asks for a TO and you blow whistle, rule obligates you to give it/enforce it...even if they didnt have ball, control etc. Even if you shouldnt have blown the whistle for them.
If they didnt ask for a TO but you thought they did then you put ball in play at POI.

This has been the rule for a long time.

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I think it's been in the book for 20 years at least.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It has not been that long as I had a conversation about this when I did not grant a timeout and a veteran told me about the casebook. This conversation took place in the 90s and did not change for some time as it was still in the book.

Ummm. Half of the 90s were at least 20 years ago.

Getting old stinks, doesn't it? What seems like 5 years ago turns out to be 20.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well that is a change and I am glad because no one did that in good conscious. I never did that and would never do that moving forward when clearly the mistake is ours.

Peace

This casebook ruling is about four years old.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This casebook ruling is about four years old.

I see it new in the books in 2008. Less than 20, more than 4.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I see it new in the books in 2008. Less than 20, more than 4.

I was told that there would be no math on the Forum.