Requesting timeout on layup situation???

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by just another ref

... the player going out of bounds asking for timeout. He asked for timeout a split second before he lands out of bounds, but he lands before the whistle. Do you give him the timeout or call the violation? A strict reading of the rule says one thing but the way things are says another.

Great point just another ref, and this is specifically allowed by rule in high school. We can't always be expected to sound the whistle before the player hits the floor, and yet the ball becomes immediately dead as soon as he hits the floor. Certainly an example of a "retroactive dead ball".

I'm giving him the timeout.

Also, here in my little corner of 100% IAABO Connecticut, we're taught and expected to verify that the ball is still in player control after verifying that the request is being made by the head coach.

This dead ball issue has become quite interesting.

[ilyazhito]

I'm not giving retroactive timeouts. If I blew the whistle before the shot/OOB/act that caused A(the requesting team) to lose possession, THEN, I can grant the timeout, otherwise, I open up a can of worms that I need to explain to the opposing coach (and possibly my supervisor) about why the shot didn't count, or why the other team doesn't get an obvious steal, etc. If I cannot blow the whistle for the timeout request before A loses possession, no timeout.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I'm not giving retroactive timeouts.

I get what you're saying, and would probably agree with you in most situations, but in just another ref's post specifically regarding the airborne player going out of bounds asking for timeout, the "rule of thumb" (as opposed to the NFHS rules) is that the hustling player grabbing a ball about to go out of bounds, and while airborne yelling loudly for a timeout to avoid an out of bounds violation, is always granted the request, even if the whistle is after the player hits the floor out of bounds (I've seen officials turn away while sounding their whistle, never actually seeing the player land on the floor).

Some things are debatable. This specific one isn't. Pick your battles. This play has been called this way, and only this way, since James Naismith nailed up the peach basket.

It's not in the NFHS Rulebook, it's not in the NFHS Casebook, that's probably not the answer to give on a written test, rather it's covered in Basketball Officiating 101 and only comes with understanding the game, and experience, with a dash of intent and purpose.

To do otherwise would open up a much bigger can of completely different worms, venomous worms, and it's something that you just don't want to do because once the worms get out of the can it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for you to get them back in the can.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... there is one way to answer written test questions, and maybe another way to handle a situation on the court. I've been around the block a few times and have been to several rodeos ...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I get what you're saying, and would probably agree with you in most situations, but in just another ref's post specifically regarding the airborne player going out of bounds asking for timeout, the "rule of thumb" (as opposed to the NFHS rules) is that the hustling player grabbing a ball about to go out of bounds, and while airborne yelling loudly for a timeout to avoid an out of bounds violation, is always granted the request, even if the whistle is after the player hits the floor out of bounds (I've seen officials turn away while sounding their whistle, never actually seeing the player land on the floor).

Some things are debatable. This specific one isn't. Pick your battles. This play has been called this way, and only this way, since James Naismith nailed up the peach basket.

It's not in the NFHS Rulebook, it's not in the NFHS Casebook, that's probably not the answer to give on a written test, rather it's covered in Basketball Officiating 101 and only comes with understanding the game, and experience, with a dash of intent and purpose.

To do otherwise would open up a much bigger can of completely different worms, venomous worms, and it's something that you just don't want to do because once the worms get out of the can it's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for you to get them back in the can.

If these 2 plays happen in the same game (request/try released/whistle/AP arrow vs. airborne/request/land OOB/whistle/grant time-out), how do explain the contradicting rulings to the coach?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

I'm not giving retroactive timeouts. If I blew the whistle before the shot/OOB/act that caused A(the requesting team) to lose possession, THEN, I can grant the timeout, otherwise, I open up a can of worms that I need to explain to the opposing coach (and possibly my supervisor) about why the shot didn't count, or why the other team doesn't get an obvious steal, etc. If I cannot blow the whistle for the timeout request before A loses possession, no timeout.

When you tell a supervisor that you didn't grant a time-out, even though the request came first, b/c your whistle did not blow until after the player landed OOB, you're going to have quite a bit of explaining to do.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

If these 2 plays happen in the same game (request/try released/whistle/AP arrow vs. airborne/request/land OOB/whistle/grant time-out), how do explain the contradicting rulings to the coach?

ilyazhito is the only person on this planet that I know who, in a real game, would deny an airborne player a timeout as he's flying out of bounds. There isn't a coach on this planet who would question my call on this play to grant the timeout. Coaches may not know all the rules, but they have a pretty good knowledge of the game.

If the coach questions my call to grant the airborne player a timeout, I'll just refer to the coach to The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules in the NFHS Rulebook.

We have some officials who have trouble understanding the subtle differences between certain situations, coaches don't know the rules that well to question these subtle differences.

A real game isn't the same as a written rules exam.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

ilyazhito is the only person on this planet that I know who, in a real game, would deny an airborne player a timeout as he's flying out of bounds. There isn't a coach on this planet who would question my call on this play to grant the timeout. Coaches may not know all the rules, but they have a pretty good knowledge of the game.

If the coach questions my call to grant the airborne player a timeout, I'll just refer to the coach to The Intent And Purpose Of The Rules in the NFHS Rulebook.

We have some officials who have trouble understanding the subtle differences between certain situations, coaches don't know the rules that well to question these subtle differences.

A real game isn't the same as a written rules exam.

If you have a game where you go to the AP arrow b/c the whistle occurs after the try is released but you grant a time-out when a player lands OOB prior to the whistle, why wouldn't a coach question that?

How is the intent and purposes of the rules applicable to the OOB play, but not the shooting play?

When I brought up the intent and purposes of the rules in regards to jump ball restrictions, you kept referring me back to actual written rule.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You can debate it or not debate it but this is one of those examples of the rule says one thing but the way it is done is another. We had a long discussion about this a while back as it related to the player going out of bounds asking for timeout. He asked for timeout a split second before he lands out of bounds, but he lands before the whistle. Do you give him the timeout or call the violation? A strict reading of the rule says one thing but the way things are says another.

Not quite the same situation. Here the official has accurate knowledge there is player control at the time of the request. The fact the whistle came after the player touched OB is not an issue. Same could be said on a last-second shot situation: Ball is clearly touching hand when the horn sounds. Official whistles and signals no shot just after ball is airborne. Is anyone going to question the official for not being able to sound the whistle while the ball was still touching hand? In most all the other situations here, we have a request from the coach requiring the official to look away from the ball to verify it was the HC. The official then sounds the whistle to grant the time out without having accurate knowledge of the status of the ball.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by Raymond

And you would be technically correct. I know that all the supervisors for whom I work would expect the crew to rule the time-out occurred before the shot was released.

My most accomplished supervisor is my HS assignor. His favorite phrase is "I want officials who make good decisions".

Notice, I never tell other officials how to handle situations. I always say either what I would do (and why) or what my supervisors expect.

And "good decisions" quite often means agreement with the supervisor's opinion. Even if that current opinion may be lacking somewhat in rules support. If that supervisor decides next year he wants officials to verify the TO request and then locate the ball to ensure PC before sounding the whistle to grant the TO, I suspect a lot of his officials are going to say, "Yep, that's the right way to do it by golly."

[ilyazhito]

A is responsible for not losing possession during the time that the timeout is requested and said request is verified as legitimate. Until I have verified that the request is legitimate, and granted it, the timeout has NOT been granted. If I had a legitimate request and a 5-second count in progress, I can grant the timeout and terminate the closely-guarded or inbounds count, even if it has reached 5, because I know that there is player control at the time of request. Not so for a player stepping on a boundary line, or releasing the ball on a shot or pass while the TO request is confirmed.

About airborne players, in NCAA, officials are specifically instructed NOT to allow TO to an airborne player who would land in the backcourt/OOB. If the player would land inbounds or in the frontcourt, the timeout request can be granted. NFHS still allows TO to airborne players, so if an airborne player has player control, I will grant it to a HS player, but not to a college player.

Re: last-second shot, there is another criterion which pre-empts the official's whistle, and that is the horn or red/LED light behind the backboard (occasionally seen on or inside the shot clock). Even if the official had not been able to blow his whistle on a late last-second shot, he can still wave it off because the light, horn, and/or reading of zeroes happened before the shot, all of which evidence could be provided to him by a partner, the official scorer, or timer. This is not so with timeout requests, where there is no external criterion which can pre-empt the official's whistle, and allow the official to retroactively allow (or disallow) the timeout request.

[BryanV21]

If you're assigner is that hardcore about the rule book then by all means go with it. But I've been calling "retroactive" timeouts for all 11 years I've officiated, and not once has that been discussed let alone have I been reprimanded in any way. Perhaps because granting those is a hell of a lot less important than not pissing off coaches leading to game management issues.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by billyu2

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

BillyU:

I am sorry for just now answering your question. I am not trying to evade your question. The game was between two Class D schools (very small schools and there was only one game clock and naturally it was on the ball behind me and directly above me. We could not put time back on the clock because we did not have definite knowledge. But the time it took for my partner to turn his head away from the Court to see who was requesting the TO was very short but still long enough for Visitor's PG to release the 3-Point FGA. And how could a NE Ohio Boy doubt another NE Ohio Boy?

MTD, Sr.

Originally Posted by BryanV21

If you're assigner is that hardcore about the rule book then by all means go with it. But I've been calling "retroactive" timeouts for all 11 years I've officiated, and not once has that been discussed let alone have I been reprimanded in any way. Perhaps because granting those is a hell of a lot less important than not pissing off coaches leading to game management issues.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Bryan:

Since women's college basketball (NGWAS and NCAA Women's Rules) has always allowed HCs to request TOs, I called "retroactive" TOs for the entire 34 years that I officiated women's college basketball, and when NFHS and NCAA Men's Rules adopted the NCAA Women's Rule I continued to call it that way at the H.S. level and men's jr. college level.

I agree with you that it is one part: game management and one part: Not in the all of the 46 years that I officiated at any level has there been a Interpretation, Casebook Play, or Approved Ruling telling officials grant "retroactive" TOs. I chose the word "retroactive" because I believe that it best describes the situation because I do not believe the phrase "delayed dead ball" does not accurately describes the situation, then again it may.

And speaking of game management:, here is the Play that you and I are thinking of:

Play: Game tied with less than ten seconds left in the 4th QT. A1 has PC of the Ball in Team A's Mid-Court Area (and for those who are wondering what the hell is the MCA just go with me for a moment) OtheT. C is TS. A-HC, who is standing out of our of eye sight of the C and requests a TO to set up THE game winning play. The C glances at Team A's Bench to verify that it is in fact A-HC making the request. In the split second after A-HC has made his TO request and before C can sound his/her whistle, B1 steals the Ball from A1 and goes in for the game "winning" layup.

Can one imagine the "carnage" that would ensue if the Game Officials said "Too bad Team A, even though A-HC requested a TO while A1 still had PC, since B1 stole the Ball before we could sound our whistles to grant A-HC's TO request we have to allow B1's FG."

Yes, the Rule one way for the Ball to become Dead is when an Officials sounds his/her whistle to grant a TO. But I do not believe the Rules intent is to allow such a situation as in the Play I described.

MTD, Sr.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by ilyazhito

A is responsible for not losing possession during the time that the timeout is requested and said request is verified as legitimate. Until I have verified that the request is legitimate, and granted it, the timeout has NOT been granted. If I had a legitimate request and a 5-second count in progress, I can grant the timeout and terminate the closely-guarded or inbounds count, even if it has reached 5, because I know that there is player control at the time of request. Not so for a player stepping on a boundary line, or releasing the ball on a shot or pass while the TO request is confirmed.

About airborne players, in NCAA, officials are specifically instructed NOT to allow TO to an airborne player who would land in the backcourt/OOB. If the player would land inbounds or in the frontcourt, the timeout request can be granted. NFHS still allows TO to airborne players, so if an airborne player has player control, I will grant it to a HS player, but not to a college player.

Re: last-second shot, there is another criterion which pre-empts the official's whistle, and that is the horn or red/LED light behind the backboard (occasionally seen on or inside the shot clock). Even if the official had not been able to blow his whistle on a late last-second shot, he can still wave it off because the light, horn, and/or reading of zeroes happened before the shot, all of which evidence could be provided to him by a partner, the official scorer, or timer. This is not so with timeout requests, where there is no external criterion which can pre-empt the official's whistle, and allow the official to retroactively allow (or disallow) the timeout request.

You're ignoring the situation where you said you would not give it time out to an airborne player if your whistle comes after he lands out of bounds. We're talkin high school here. I don't need you telling me college rules because that situation is moot to college.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

If you have a game where you go to the AP arrow b/c the whistle occurs after the try is released but you grant a time-out when a player lands OOB prior to the whistle, why wouldn't a coach question that?

First. They're two different situations, apples and oranges, one is a timeout called by a coach that has to be verified, possibly taking the official's vision off the player for a second, and the other is a timeout called by player right in front to me.

Second: While the coach may question my release call there's no way that he has to rules knowledge to compare it to my airborne player call.

Third: Coaches, fans, players, and most officials (only one exception on the planet) really don't break down the dead ball rule for an airborne player. They just know that it's allowed in high school basketball, and has been called that way since the Mayans were kicking the heads of their decapitated enemies through stone rings.

Fourth. Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we're taught and expected to verify that the ball is still in player control after verifying that the request is being made by the head coach, before we grant any such timeout and sound our whistle. Been doing it that way since 1998, well before the 2016-17 NFHS Basketball Points of Emphasis. After I verify it's the head coach, I then observe that the player has released the ball and I will not grant a time out, nor will I sound my whistle, because there is no player control during a try. Ignore the request. Play on.

So unless I screw up, the question for me is moot.

And if a screw up, I will admit to the coaches that I screwed up and my partner and I will figure out how to get out to the mess that I caused in a fair manner, maybe using black and white rules, or maybe using purpose and intent of those rules.

[ilyazhito]

Typically, the airborne player TO is requested by a player when he is still inbounds, so if I blow the whistle immediately on a player request, I can grant it before he is out of bounds. I can't always do that for a coach request, though, because I need to verify that it is the HEAD coach, and that the player has control after the head coach request. By that time, the player would usually have either batted the ball back inbounds, or have gained out of bounds status.