Requesting timeout on layup situation???

[ballgame99]

To grant this timeout I would need to clearly hear "time out" and know it was from the HC. If you blow dead, shot goes in, and coach said "five out" now I look like an idiot. It is just a strange spot and timing for a timeout. If you know basketball you expect these timeouts after made baskets or when a ball handler gets in trouble. Not when offense has the ball in scoring position. That can't be on you, that's on the coach. But by all means, if you are 1000% sure HC called a timeout while his kid is shooting a shot from the block, grant it.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

If the Ball is still in A1's hands when A-HC makes his request for a TO, we are required to verify that it was the HC that made the request. The Rules recognize the fact that the A1 could very well release the Ball on a FGA and the FGA could go completely through the Basket during the time period in which the verification is being made. Grant the TO. The Ball became Dead retroactively to the moment the TO was actually requested.

Case-in-Point: Decades (and I do mean decades) ago in a girls' VAR game, less than 30 seconds left in the game, Visitors are down by three points and have the Ball Table Side in its Front Court. I was the L, Opposite the Table, in a Two-Person Crew, when V-HC, who is standing behind the T requests a TO. I did not have a good look through the Lane to look for a HC making a TO request. In that split second that my partner turned to verify the TO request V1 launched a 3-Point FGA that did nothing by tickled the net for a game tying FGA, . The Visitors were whooping and hollering until we informed the Table the that Ball because Dead at the moment the TO request was made. After the TO the Visitor were able to take two 3-Point FGAs but neither of them were successful and the Visitors lost by three points.

MTD, Sr.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If the Ball is still in A1's hands when A-HC makes his request for a TO, we are required to verify that it was the HC that made the request. The Rules recognize the fact that the A1 could very well release the Ball on a FGA and the FGA could go completely through the Basket during the time period in which the verification is being made. Grant the TO. The Ball became Dead retroactively to the moment the TO was actually requested.

Case-in-Point: Decades (and I do mean decades) ago in a girls' VAR game, less than 30 seconds left in the game, Visitors are down by three points and have the Ball Table Side in its Front Court. I was the L, Opposite the Table, in a Two-Person Crew, when V-HC, who is standing behind the T requests a TO. I did not have a good look through the Lane to look for a HC making a TO request. In that split second that my partner turned to verify the TO request V1 launched a 3-Point FGA that did nothing by tickled the net for a game tying FGA, . The Visitors were whooping and hollering until we informed the Table the that Ball because Dead at the moment the TO request was made. After the TO the Visitor were able to take two 3-Point FGAs but neither of them were successful and the Visitors lost by three points.

MTD, Sr.

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

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If the Ball is still in A1's hands when A-HC makes his request for a TO, we are required to verify that it was the HC that made the request. The Rules recognize the fact that the A1 could very well release the Ball on a FGA and the FGA could go completely through the Basket during the time period in which the verification is being made. Grant the TO. The Ball became Dead retroactively to the moment the TO was actually requested.

Case-in-Point: Decades (and I do mean decades) ago in a girls' VAR game, less than 30 seconds left in the game, Visitors are down by three points and have the Ball Table Side in its Front Court. I was the L, Opposite the Table, in a Two-Person Crew, when V-HC, who is standing behind the T requests a TO. I did not have a good look through the Lane to look for a HC making a TO request. In that split second that my partner turned to verify the TO request V1 launched a 3-Point FGA that did nothing by tickled the net for a game tying FGA, . The Visitors were whooping and hollering until we informed the Table the that Ball because Dead at the moment the TO request was made. After the TO the Visitor were able to take two 3-Point FGAs but neither of them were successful and the Visitors lost by three points.

MTD, Sr.

This is one reason, and it may seem silly, that I suggest never watching the ball/shot when TO are requested/granted. Same goes for fouls just before shots. Do not whistle a foul, or have a late whistle on a foul before a shot, and then track the ball with your eyes. Some interpret the make, and subsequent wave off, by you as being intentional/influential. It is as if you waited too long and then took something away. Officials do not do that of course but people seem to think that way.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

... never watching the ball/shot when TO are requested/granted.

I do this with the end of period shots that aren't released when the horn sounds. Once I make up my mind that the shot wasn't released on time, I turn to the table, wave my arms, and state, "No shot", I never know if the shot went in, or not, because it doesn't matter and I don't care, or want to appear to care.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

If the Ball is still in A1's hands when A-HC makes his request for a TO, we are required to verify that it was the HC that made the request. The Rules recognize the fact that the A1 could very well release the Ball on a FGA and the FGA could go completely through the Basket during the time period in which the verification is being made. Grant the TO. The Ball became Dead retroactively to the moment the TO was actually requested.

Case-in-Point: Decades (and I do mean decades) ago in a girls' VAR game, less than 30 seconds left in the game, Visitors are down by three points and have the Ball Table Side in its Front Court. I was the L, Opposite the Table, in a Two-Person Crew, when V-HC, who is standing behind the T requests a TO. I did not have a good look through the Lane to look for a HC making a TO request. In that split second that my partner turned to verify the TO request V1 launched a 3-Point FGA that did nothing by tickled the net for a game tying FGA, . The Visitors were whooping and hollering until we informed the Table the that Ball because Dead at the moment the TO request was made. After the TO the Visitor were able to take two 3-Point FGAs but neither of them were successful and the Visitors lost by three points.

MTD, Sr.

If the Ball is still in A1's hands when A-HC makes his request for a TO, we are required to verify that it was the HC that made the request. The Rules recognize the fact that the A1 could very well release the Ball on a FGA and the FGA could go completely through the Basket during the time period in which the verification is being made. Grant the TO. The Ball became Dead retroactively to the moment the TO was actually requested.

Case-in-Point: Decades (and I do mean decades) ago in a girls' VAR game, less than 30 seconds left in the game, Visitors are down by three points and have the Ball Table Side in its Front Court. I was the L, Opposite the Table, in a Two-Person Crew, when V-HC, who is standing behind the T requests a TO. I did not have a good look through the Lane to look for a HC making a TO request. In that split second that my partner turned to verify the TO request V1 launched a 3-Point FGA that did nothing by tickled the net for a game tying FGA, . The Visitors were whooping and hollering until we informed the Table the that Ball because Dead at the moment the TO request was made. After the TO the Visitor were able to take two 3-Point FGAs but neither of them were successful and the Visitors lost by three points.

MTD, Sr.


“He requested the timeout before the shot attempt... Give it to him.” BryanV21

Since my question remains unanswered, consider this similar play: Visitors are down 3 points. Just as V1 ends her dribble near the 3pt. line V-HC requests a time out. The official turns and verifies it was the HC and just as he whistles to grant the time out, V1’s three point try swishes through the net. The clock shows .2 of a second remaining in the game. Using MTD’s rule, the ball becomes dead retroactively to the moment when the TO was actually requested. Using that erroneous philosophy, the ball should also retroactively go back to player control by V1 because according to NFHS rule we cannot grant a TO during a live ball unless there is player control. If we continue to use MTD’s philosophy, it would be incumbent upon the officials to put back the time on the clock just prior to V1’s release of the ball. That is, of course, if the officials have definite knowledge. The granting official wouldn’t know because he was looking to verify the TO request. The other officials, not having heard any signal yet, are most likely watching their PCA. Taking into account the HC requested the TO as V1 ended her dribble, the subsequent shooting motion of V1 and the flight of the ball on a try beyond the three point line there easily could have been 3+ seconds on the clock. So, for those who say grant the time out, what are you doing now? Taking away the tying 3 point goal and giving the visiting team a sideline throw in with .2 on the clock, correct?
There was a Point of Emphasis in the rule book and the Pre Season Guide for the 2016-17 season that made it very clear the official must ensure there is player control status before granting a requested time out during a live ball. Coaches are expected to understand that officials often cannot immediately grant a request for a time out. The correct procedure and ruling that I am reading from the NFHS for the above plays is that after verifying the HC’s request the official should have then checked the location of the ball and seeing the 3 point attempts were in flight, should have denied the request.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Point of Emphasis in the rule book and the Pre Season Guide for the 2016-17 season that made it very clear the official must ensure there is player control status before granting a requested time out during a live ball.

2016-17 NFHS Basketball Points of Emphasis
1. Acknowledging and Granting Timeout criteria. Granting a time-out is an aspect of the game allowed by rule where knowledge of ball position, player control and dead/live ball criteria can all be factors in awarding the requested timeout. Consideration has been given regarding continuing the opportunity for a head coach to call a time-out. The committee wanted to maintain the current time-out criteria. When a ball is live, player control is required. A player or the head coach of the team in possession may request and be granted a time-out. When the ball is dead, the crew must maintain its coverage areas on the court but also be aware of the opportunity for a head coach to request a time-out. This request can be oral or visual, but must be verified by the ruling official. If the request meets criteria, a time-out should be granted.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by billyu2

There was a Point of Emphasis in the rule book and the Pre Season Guide for the 2016-17 season that made it very clear the official must ensure there is player control status before granting a requested time out during a live ball. Coaches are expected to understand that officials often cannot immediately grant a request for a time out. The correct procedure and ruling that I am reading from the NFHS for the above plays is that after verifying the HC’s request the official should have then checked the location of the ball and seeing the 3 point attempts were in flight, should have denied the request.

I disagree. If there is no PC, I'm not turning to verify anything. If I turn to verify that it is the coach, I've already verified that there is a valid opportunity for a timeout. Once I've verified that, I'm granting the timeout without looking back to the court.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I disagree. If there is no PC, I'm not turning to verify anything. If I turn to verify that it is the coach, I've already verified that there is a valid opportunity for a timeout. Once I've verified that, I'm granting the timeout without looking back to the court.

Not sure I understand your point, Camron. I agree if there is no PC when a TO request is made I'm not looking to verify anything either because by rule I can't grant it anyway. If there is PC when the request is made, NFHS says to verify it is coming from the HC and then ensure there is still PC before granting the TO.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Not sure I understand your point, Camron. I agree if there is no PC when a TO request is made I'm not looking to verify anything either because by rule I can't grant it anyway. If there is PC when the request is made, NFHS says to verify it is coming from the HC and then ensure there is still PC before granting the TO.

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.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

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.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The Ball became Dead retroactively to the moment the TO was actually requested.

Let's see. This should be easy enough to check.

6-7 The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when:
ART. 1 A goal, as in 5-1, is made.
ART. 2 It is apparent the free throw will not be successful on a:
a. Free throw which is to be followed by another free throw.
b. Free throw which is to be followed by a throw-in.
ART. 3 A held ball occurs, or the ball lodges between the backboard
and ring or comes to rest on the flange.
ART. 4 A player-control or team-control foul occurs.
ART. 5 An official’s whistle is blown.
ART. 6 Time expires for a quarter or extra period.
ART. 7 A foul, other than player-control or team-control, occurs.
ART. 8 A free-throw violation by the throwing team occurs.
ART. 9 A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs.

Hmmm.

I can't find, "Coach requesting a timeout when his/her player has player control", on the list.

Odd?

I can find, "An official's whistle is blown", on the list which could be an official's response to granting a timeout when a coach's player has player control.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Let's see. This should be easy enough to check.



6-7 The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when:

ART. 1 A goal, as in 5-1, is made.

ART. 2 It is apparent the free throw will not be successful on a:

a. Free throw which is to be followed by another free throw.

b. Free throw which is to be followed by a throw-in.

ART. 3 A held ball occurs, or the ball lodges between the backboard

and ring or comes to rest on the flange.

ART. 4 A player-control or team-control foul occurs.

ART. 5 An official’s whistle is blown.

ART. 6 Time expires for a quarter or extra period.

ART. 7 A foul, other than player-control or team-control, occurs.

ART. 8 A free-throw violation by the throwing team occurs.

ART. 9 A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs.



Hmmm.



I can't find, "Coach requesting a timeout when his/her player has player control", on the list.



Odd?



I can find, "An official's whistle is blown", on the list which could be an official's response to granting a timeout when a coach's player has player control.

Good point, but are you saying you wouldn't allow the team in my scenario to run the endline on the throw in following the time out?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

...but are you saying you wouldn't allow the team in my scenario to run the endline on the throw in following the time out?

I will always allow a team that has the privilege of running the endline to run the endline, but I'm going to administer the throwin at a spot predetermined by the positions of where my partner and I were when the timeout was granted.

If the throwin had already been made when the timeout was granted, I'm giving it to them at a designated spot. If there's some question in my mind regarding exactly when it was granted, I will allow them to run the endline.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

...

Sooo, you see A1 with the ball, then hear and see A-HC request a time-out, and just as you blow the whistle, A1 has just released the ball on a try that goes in his basket--how are you adjudicating that scenario?