NCAA 10-sec backcourt count - should it be reset?

[eyezen]

A1 has possession of the ball in the backcourt.

The shot clock reads 22 when A2 requests timeout and a timeout is granted.

Normally we would reset the 10-sec count.

What happens if team A is out of timeouts?

I have my theory, but want to hear other opinions.

(This is not an argument whether the time out request should be "ignored" or not)

[Raymond]

Reset the 10-second count. They pay the price for the excessive time-out with the Class-B tech.

I think it's a loophole in the rule; I brought this up in discussions with other officials one day. If I'm up by 3-points, out of time-outs, and in the last 10 seconds of a ballgame, I would take the time-out and give up the 1-point to save my team a turnover.

This may cause the NCAA-Men to change the excessive time-out rule to match the Women's side.

[Matt S.]

I was about to say, I don't know what the men's rule is, but on the women's side, an excessive timeout causes loss of possession on the ensuing throw-in.

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Reset the 10-second count. They pay the price for the excessive time-out with the Class-B tech.

I tend to agree. The clock was stopped for the time out - not the ensuing offensive technical (and therefore not one of the three non-reset scenarios)...therefore the 10-sec count should be reset

But I think the situation is muddied enough that it needs a definitive ruling.

[SWMOzebra]

Originally Posted by Matt S.

I was about to say, I don't know what the men's rule is, but on the women's side, an excessive timeout causes loss of possession on the ensuing throw-in.

Yep, no need to worry about a new 10 second count because Team B will be inbounding the ball in their front court after shooting 2 FTs.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Reset the 10-second count. They pay the price for the excessive time-out with the Class-B tech.

I think it's a loophole in the rule; I brought this up in discussions with other officials one day. If I'm up by 3-points, out of time-outs, and in the last 10 seconds of a ballgame, I would take the time-out and give up the 1-point to save my team a turnover.

This may cause the NCAA-Men to change the excessive time-out rule to match the Women's side.

Is it any more a loophole than the tied up player calling an excessive TO to avoid a 5 second count in the front court? Or on a throw in? I've never seen either of those actually happen -- has anyone? (Of course, there was the famous Webber play, but that was back when a T was also a TO.)

I doubt there will be much concern about changing the rule unless there is a real incident -- how often is it really going to make sense to call that TO?

This reminds me a bit of the old NBA advance the ball rule on a TO. I believe it was a Phoenix Suns game in the '80s where the Suns were down 1 with a second (maybe 2?) left, down 1 with no TOs left. They called it anyway to advance the ball. Other team made the FT. And they tied it at the buzzer. And I believe the rule changed the next year so that you could not advance on an excess TO.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Is it any more a loophole than the tied up player calling an excessive TO to avoid a 5 second count in the front court? Or on a throw in? I've never seen either of those actually happen -- has anyone? (Of course, there was the famous Webber play, but that was back when a T was also a TO.)

Huh? Do you resume a 5-second count after the time-out? How are the 2 situations related?

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

I doubt there will be much concern about changing the rule unless there is a real incident -- how often is it really going to make sense to call that TO?
...

How about this. Team A up 3 points, gains BC possession with 15 seconds remaining. Team B knocks ball OOB in BC with 7 seconds left in game, and 2 seconds left on 10-second count. Team A then takes an excessive time-out.

You don't think that would benefit Team A?

[JetMetFan]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

How about this. Team A up 3 points, gains BC possession with 15 seconds remaining. Team B knocks ball OOB in BC with 7 seconds left in game, and 2 seconds left on 10-second count. Team A then takes an excessive time-out.

You don't think that would benefit Team A?

It's a loophole but I suspect it will be closed on the NCAAM side of things. Those of you on the men's side might want to write Mr. Hyland and alert him before the problem shows its head in a game.

As was mentioned earlier, there's no gain on the NCAAW side because part of the penalty for an excessive timeout is loss of possession.

[APG]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

This reminds me a bit of the old NBA advance the ball rule on a TO. I believe it was a Phoenix Suns game in the '80s where the Suns were down 1 with a second (maybe 2?) left, down 1 with no TOs left. They called it anyway to advance the ball. Other team made the FT. And they tied it at the buzzer. And I believe the rule changed the next year so that you could not advance on an excess TO.

Rule now calls for a T and possession to the other team (same as NCAA-W)

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Huh? Do you resume a 5-second count after the time-out? How are the 2 situations related?

How about this. Team A up 3 points, gains BC possession with 15 seconds remaining. Team B knocks ball OOB in BC with 7 seconds left in game, and 2 seconds left on 10-second count. Team A then takes an excessive time-out.

You don't think that would benefit Team A?

Who ever said there couldn't be a benefit?? What I said was: "I doubt there will be much concern about changing the rule unless there is a real incident -- how often is it really going to make sense to call that TO?" I didn't say it was hard to come up with scenarios where a coach might think it makes sense to do -- my point is, this will happen very rarely as there just aren't that many games where it is going to make sense. (If the ball is in play, coaches are generally not going to want to have to inbound the ball again instead of just moving into the front court; there are very few times the ball is going to get knocked out of bounds in the back court with less than 10 seconds left, with the team out of TOs and with a lead size that makes it make sense to take the T.) Rule changes require someone to care enough to change it.

And whether taking the T really makes sense is an interesting question in many of these scenarios. Is it really better to be up only two while having to inbound the ball against the press? Somewhat akin to the ever-present debate of when it makes sense for the defense to deliberately foul when up three in end game scenarios.

[Raymond]

I'm still trying figure out how the new 10-second BC rule and its exceptions is related to a 5 second closely guarded count.

A closely guarded count doesn't get interrupted then resumed from the same point.
Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

I'm still trying figure out how the new 10-second BC rule and its exceptions is related to a 5 second closely guarded count.

A closely guarded count doesn't get interrupted then resumed from the same point.
Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

Precisely. Neither does a back court count if a time out is called. In each case, the team with ball gets exactly the same benefit from calling TO: a new count. I can be dribbling in the front court closely guarded and get relief from the 5 second count exactly the same as I can be dribbling in the back court and call time out to get relief from the 10 second count. (You added the ball going out of play to the scenario -- that is not a necessary component of the potential advantage of calling an excessive TO.)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Precisely. Neither does a back court count if a time out is called. In each case, the team with ball gets exactly the same benefit from calling TO: a new count. I can be dribbling in the front court closely guarded and get relief from the 5 second count exactly the same as I can be dribbling in the back court and call time out to get relief from the 10 second count. (You added the ball going out of play to the scenario -- that is not a necessary component of the potential advantage of calling an excessive TO.)

We're specifically talking about an excessive time-out, not just a regular time-out. So tell me again how the 2 are related. We're past the elementary part of the rule that allows a team to call a time-out and reset the 10-second count.

A technical foul on Team A doesn't reset the 10-second count...last I checked, after a technical foul, we don't resume the 5-second count where we ended.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

We're specifically talking about an excessive time-out, not just a regular time-out. So tell me again how the 2 are related. We're past the elementary part of the rule that allows a team to call a time-out and reset the 10-second count.

A technical foul on Team A doesn't reset the 10-second count...last I checked, after a technical foul, we don't resume the 5-second count where we ended.

In both cases, a team can choose (in theory) to lose possession, or to give up two FTs and keep possession. There might be a case where the latter is preferable. Some might consider it a loophole that needs to be closed.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

In both cases, a team can choose (in theory) to lose possession, or to give up two FTs and keep possession. There might be a case where the latter is preferable. Some might consider it a loophole that needs to be closed.

It's not 2 free throws Bob, it's now just 1. All Class-B's are now just 1 shot. And one of the exceptions to not resetting the 10-second count is a technical foul on Team-A. So which takes precedence, the offensive time-out or the technical?

I say the time-out takes precedence, but as eyezen said, it worthy of an official interpretation from Art Hyland.