The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 20, 2019, 11:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mentor, Ohio
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks


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 07:18am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1