The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 20, 2019, 08:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mentor, Ohio
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by so cal lurker View Post
I think you’re reading something into the POe that isn’t there. It doesn’t say the ref has to check for PC a second time after being sure it is the HC.
I don't think so. I remember before the 2016-17 season there was discussion to do away with the HC requesting time outs during a live ball because of the problems it was causing (table-side) officials in particular. Coaches were "requesting" TO's during PC but on occasion, officials, while verifying it was the HC, ended up "granting" TO's while the ball had become airborne on a try or pass, loose on the floor, jointly held by two opponents and in some cases stolen by the opponent. The Point of Emphasis was for officials to "ensure" player control status prior to granting the requested time out. (which infers checking again before granting) That's the way I remember it being explain at our state interpreter's meeting. We were also told that coaches in our state were told the same thing in their required online state rules meeting and that they must understand officials cannot always immediately grant requests until they ensure there is PC.
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 21, 2019, 04:47pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 700
That may be what you remember was explained, but the POE, which someone posted above, doesn’t say to rme check for PC a second time. (Not, frankly, does it make a whit of sense.). But I still think the whole thing should be avoided by not letting coaches call TOs....
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jan 21, 2019, 07:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mentor, Ohio
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by so cal lurker View Post
That may be what you remember was explained, but the POE, which someone posted above, doesn’t say to rme check for PC a second time. (Not, frankly, does it make a whit of sense.). But I still think the whole thing should be avoided by not letting coaches call TOs....
I wouldn't get hung up on that. All the POE is saying is before you grant the time out, make sure there is still player control. I would guess even when the ball is not in your PCA, 95 percent of the time we already know (peripheral) if the ball is being held, dribbled or airborne on a pass or try without being a ball-watcher. So when the request is made: verify it was the HC, make sure there is PC and grant the TO. That's one check. Feel better? And I agree, eliminate TO's by HC's during live ball.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 22, 2019, 09:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 39
Nothing better then giving a coach a TO and his player makes a shot lol
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jan 22, 2019, 01:54pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,629
I am not going back through the thread and make a lot of multi-quotes. But I am going to clarify some of the various points made in this thread.

I) When the Ball is Dead: Either Team can Request a TO.

A) Any of the ten Players on the Court may Request a TO.

B) Either HC may Request a TO.


II) When the Ball is Live: Only the Team that has Control (TC) of the Ball can Request a TO.

A) The Request must be made when a Player as Control (PC) of the Ball.

B) Any of the five Players on the Court may Request a TO.

C) The HC may Request a TO.


III) Verification of the Status of the Ball when a TO Request is made.

A) After a Made FGA or FTA:

1) Is the Ball Dead? Or

2) Is the Ball at the Disposal of the Thrower (i.e., the Ball is Live)?

B) The Ball is Live. (If the Ball is Dead see Item (I) above.)

1) Is there TC by either Team?

a) No. The TO Request cannot be Granted.

b) Yes.

i) Is there PC? No: The Request cannot be Granted. Yes: The Request can be Granted.


IV) When there is TC and a Player Requests a TO it is relatively easy, most of the time, to quickly verify that there is PC when the Request is made. Why? Before the NFHS and NCAA Men's Rules Committees amended the TO Rule to also allow HCs to request a TO, rarely did Players, on their own initiative, request a TO (Think Chris Webber, 1993 NCAA Men's National Championship Game; Jeff I am sorry to have to reference this game.). HCs, close to 100% of the time, instructed their Players when to request a TO.

Amending the TO Rule really did not change the dynamic as to when a Team requested a TO or the Officials protocol as to how a TO Request is handled. It only allowed one more person the ability to request a TO.


V) Recent POEs have only highlighted BBB important aspects of a Live Ball TO Request:

A) The Request cannot be Granted unless there is PC by a Player of the Team with TC,

B) Do not immediately Grant the Request unless made by the Player in PC, or

C) When there is PC and the Request is made by a Player other than the Player in PC or by the HC, verify that the request was made by a Player of the HC of the Team with TC.

1) If the Request is by a Player or HC of the Team not in TC, ignore the Request and let play continue.

2) If the Request is by a Player or HC of the Team in TC, Grant the Request, any thing that happened between the Time that the Request was made and the Time that it was actually Granted is ignored unless it is an IF, FF by either Team.

a) For all intents and purposes the Ball has become Dead retroactively (The word "retroactive" is, I believe, best word that describes the situation.), and

b) See Item (III-B-1-b-i) above.


Side Note 1: There have been a few comments in this Thread and many older Threads making the recommendation that the Article defining who can Request a TO be amended to return to its "ancient" requirement of only Players can Request a TO, and the most given reason is that it just adds to the Game Officials duties during Live Ball action during the game. I can truthfully say that there is no member of this Forum that has more experience with this Rule than me. The Rule amended portion that was added to the NFHS and NCAA Men's Rules was adopted (in the late 1980s if my memory serves me correctly because I do not have access to my attic right now) from the NCAA Women's Rules that was part of the NAGWS Basketball Rules that was adopted by the NCAA Women's Rules Committee when the Committee was formed in 1982 or 1983. The Rule predates my becoming a women's college basketball official in 1974, and I seriously doubt that anyone else in the Forum was officiating women's college basketball back then. NAGWS Basketball Rules was also used by some State in the Northeast for girls' H.S. but I think that by the 1980s that was no more. None-the-less, my position has always been that I could care less about the Rule amendment because I already had considerable experience with administering it.


Side Note 2: There is a historical discussion to be made as to why HCs could not make TO Requests in boys'/girls' H.S. and men's college, but that is for another time and day.


MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 23, 2019, 01:11pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mentor, Ohio
Posts: 477
What I believe MTD is saying:
TO request > Verify > Grant > Ignore infractions or change of ball status that may occur during verifying. Ball becomes dead “retroactively” to request.

What I believe the rules say:
TO request > Verify > Ensure PC > Grant: See Rule 5-8-3a and 6-7 DEAD BALL (note there is no rule statement or case play to support ball becoming dead “retroactively” to time of request.

Situations to Consider:

Play 1.
A1 is dribbling very near the sideline opposite the table. HC requests a TO. As the tableside official turns to verify, the ball lands on the sideline. The official opposite and the unaware tableside official simultaneously sound their whistles, one to signal the violation, the other to signal the TO. How would you rule this?

Play 2.
A1 is holding the ball opposite the table. HC requests a TO. As the tableside official turns to verify, B2 gets a firm grip on the ball. Both officials simultaneously sound their whistles, one for a held ball, the unaware tableside official for a TO. How would you rule this?

Play 3.
A1 is holding the ball opposite the table. HC requests a TO. As the tableside official turns to verify, B2 pokes the ball away from A1 and grabs the ball out of the air. The unaware tableside official sounds the whistle and grants the TO. How would you rule this?
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 23, 2019, 01:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Rockville,MD
Posts: 627
No timeout in situation 1, because there was no player control immediately after the request (by rule, I could say simultaneously with the request, because simultaneous does not mean "at exactly the same time", rather "at the same time, or shortly afterwards"). This was similar to a situation I had where a coach requested a timeout, but as soon as I heard the request, the player with the ball stepped on the sideline. I understood that he requested the timeout to save possession because his player was pressured, but there was no possession to save once the player stepped on the sideline.

No timeout in situation 2, because the officials need to determine who is entitled to possession. A held ball is in joint possession of both players and both teams, so no one team has the required player and team control to request a live-ball timeout. \

I would administer situation 3 as an inadvertent whistle, because the necessary condition for the timeout (player and team control) does not exist.

If the coach of the originally requesting team would request timeout again after the officials indicated the resumption of play (which direction the ball would go next), I would grant it, but I would not allow the original requests because player control was lost at the time of the requests.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 23, 2019, 02:19pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyu2 View Post
...

Situations to Consider:

Play 1.
A1 is dribbling very near the sideline opposite the table. HC requests a TO. As the tableside official turns to verify, the ball lands on the sideline. The official opposite and the unaware tableside official simultaneously sound their whistles, one to signal the violation, the other to signal the TO. How would you rule this?

...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilyazhito View Post
No timeout in situation 1, because there was no player control immediately after the request (by rule, I could say simultaneously with the request, because simultaneous does not mean "at exactly the same time", rather "at the same time, or shortly afterwards"). This was similar to a situation I had where a coach requested a timeout, but as soon as I heard the request, the player with the ball stepped on the sideline. I understood that he requested the timeout to save possession because his player was pressured, but there was no possession to save once the player stepped on the sideline.

...
I hear the request prior to the OOB violation I'm hitting my whistle and saying "prior to going out-of-bounds, time-out Team A coach".
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 23, 2019, 02:27pm
Stubborn Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,451
So...

After a made basket by team A you hear team B's coach yelling (or at least someone from team B's bench yelling), you turn to see what's up and find he is yelling for a timeout. You hit your whistle for the timeout, however at this point B1 has already inbounded the ball.

Obviously you grant the timeout, but are you going to allow team B to run the baseline after the timeout since the coach had requested the timeout before the ball was inbounded? Or since you can't, by rule, retroactively grant the timeout is the ensuing throw in going to be a spot throw in?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 23, 2019, 02:38pm
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 13,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanV21 View Post
So...

After a made basket by team A you hear team B's coach yelling (or at least someone from team B's bench yelling), you turn to see what's up and find he is yelling for a timeout. You hit your whistle for the timeout, however at this point B1 has already inbounded the ball.

Obviously you grant the timeout, but are you going to allow team B to run the baseline after the timeout since the coach had requested the timeout before the ball was inbounded? Or since you can't, by rule, retroactively grant the timeout is the ensuing throw in going to be a spot throw in?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Just had this situation in a college game. We agreed request came prior to throw-in and gave Team B the right to run the end line.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 23, 2019, 02:40pm
Stubborn Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,451
That's what I've done as it's happened every once in a while.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 23, 2019, 05:30pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyu2 View Post
What I believe MTD is saying:
TO request > Verify > Grant > Ignore infractions or change of ball status that may occur during verifying. Ball becomes dead “retroactively” to request.

What I believe the rules say:
TO request > Verify > Ensure PC > Grant: See Rule 5-8-3a and 6-7 DEAD BALL (note there is no rule statement or case play to support ball becoming dead “retroactively” to time of request.

Situations to Consider:

Play 1.
A1 is dribbling very near the sideline opposite the table. HC requests a TO. As the tableside official turns to verify, the ball lands on the sideline. The official opposite and the unaware tableside official simultaneously sound their whistles, one to signal the violation, the other to signal the TO. How would you rule this?

Play 2.
A1 is holding the ball opposite the table. HC requests a TO. As the tableside official turns to verify, B2 gets a firm grip on the ball. Both officials simultaneously sound their whistles, one for a held ball, the unaware tableside official for a TO. How would you rule this?

Play 3.
A1 is holding the ball opposite the table. HC requests a TO. As the tableside official turns to verify, B2 pokes the ball away from A1 and grabs the ball out of the air. The unaware tableside official sounds the whistle and grants the TO. How would you rule this?

NFHS and NCAA Men's & Women's: Grant Team A's request for a TO for all three Plays. A1 had PC at the moment that A-HC made his request for TO in all three Plays. Everything that happened between the moment that the TO Request was made and the moment that that the TO was Granted is not relative.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 23, 2019, 05:35pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanV21 View Post
So...

After a made basket by team A you hear team B's coach yelling (or at least someone from team B's bench yelling), you turn to see what's up and find he is yelling for a timeout. You hit your whistle for the timeout, however at this point B1 has already inbounded the ball.

Obviously you grant the timeout, but are you going to allow team B to run the baseline after the timeout since the coach had requested the timeout before the ball was inbounded? Or since you can't, by rule, retroactively grant the timeout is the ensuing throw in going to be a spot throw in?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raymond View Post
Just had this situation in a college game. We agreed request came prior to throw-in and gave Team B the right to run the end line.

You would grant Team B's TO Request and allow the Throw-in to be made anywhere along the End Line as long as Team B's TO Request was made before the Throw-in after Team A's FG had not ended.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 23, 2019, 05:49pm
Stubborn Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 1,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. View Post
You would grant Team B's TO Request and allow the Throw-in to be made anywhere along the End Line as long as Team B's TO Request was made before the Throw-in after Team A's FG had not ended.



MTD, Sr.
This is what I meant all along, as that post was meant to be rhetorical towards the person talking about not retroactively giving a time out.

Sorry for not making that clear.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 23, 2019, 05:54pm
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
Posts: 7,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by BryanV21 View Post
This is what I meant all along, as that post was meant to be rhetorical towards the person talking about not retroactively giving a time out.

Sorry for not making that clear.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Bryan:

Welcome to my world where my fingers either too fast of my brain or my brain things too slow for my fingers. And at my age it is usually the latter, LOL.

MTD, Sr.
__________________
Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Trumbull Co. (Warren, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Wood Co. (Bowling Green, Ohio) Bkb. Off. Assn.
Ohio Assn. of Basketball Officials
International Assn. of Approved Bkb. Officials
Toledo, Ohio
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NCAA: Coach Requesting a Timeout Under 1 Minute? Smoothieking Basketball 36 Sat Feb 25, 2017 12:42pm
Odd timeout situation Cav0 Basketball 14 Thu Jan 27, 2011 07:26pm
Timeout/Layup = technical foul MelbRef Basketball 64 Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:27pm
Timeout situation Coach Bill Basketball 58 Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:46am
Excessive Timeout Situation rpwall Basketball 29 Thu Feb 08, 2001 03:30pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:32pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1