Requesting timeout on layup situation???
 

Tied game last night with less than 30 seconds to go. Visiting team is passing around perimeter and gets the ball into their big man. I'm L up by the coach. The player is down on the opposite block. There is a taller defender on him but he has a wider body. The player goes up off of two feet and at exactly the point he is taking off to put the ball off the glass the coach is yelling for a TO. By the time I see and register everything in my head the player is in mid air.

Do you grant the TO in this situation?

I didn't and as you could imagine, the kid missed the layup. Home team gets rebound and brings up ball to half court calls a timeout with 15 secs left. Other coach still complaining on not getting TO granted. Home teams runs clock, one of the guards brings ball into the lane throws up a wild underhand shot that goes high off the board and rattles in with no time left on clock for the win, LOL.

Neither of my partners thought it would have been right to grant the TO but I couldn't help but thinking that according to the rules it would have been legit. Player had control! Now, if I granted the TO and the kid makes his bunny shot, I'm waving off a go ahead goal and visiting crowd goes ballistic.

Anyways, never been in a situation where the TO was requested as player is going up for a layup.

Thoughts? Comments?

Thanks:)

Grant it. The fans will be mad -- at the coach.

If you are watching the play and keenly focused on it, then do not grant it. You are to officiate the play and have neither the time, nor luxury, to take your eyes off the play and be sure that it is the coach requesting TO. If you were indeed officiating the play, your partner(s) could have and probably should have been able to see the HC and grant the TO.

Also, with massive amounts of respect to Bob, many fans will still be mad at you even though it was the coach's fault.;)

If the home coach hears the visiting coach request timeout and you don't grant it and the layup is made, you're going to hear about it.

As long as you're 100% sure that V coach requested TO and his player was in control, grant it. If it takes away an easy layup, he has no one to blame but himself.

Now, if you're focused and just miss the request, that happens. But don't ignore it because "they were about to score a layup." Some officials would buy into that philosophy and I think that's ludicrous. Probably the same officials that would turn a blind eye to a team requesting TO when it has none left.

Did you mean to say you were the Trail, not the "L"?

Guardians Of The IAABO Galaxy ...
 

2018-2019 IAABO Significant Manual Revisions changed to allow officials to grant timeouts if they either see or hear a head coach request such (“and” changed to “or”).

IAABO mechanics now match the NFHS rule.

5-8-3: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official: Grants and signals a player’s/head coach’s oral or visual request for a time-out.

In a loud gym, just because we can doesn't mean we should.

Sorry, my bad!

Yes I was the T!!!

I've had a similar scenario in the past (a couple of times actually) in which a coach loudly - so most in the gym could hear - requested a time out while A1 had control and was passing to A2 who released shot beyond the arc. Both time I was looking through to the coach as T from opposite his bench. I confirmed then granted the timeout as soon as A2 caught the ball. Of course, it was bang bang and A2 releases a quick and successful try.

The egg was on the coach's face.

If the player is in control and the coach requests it, grant it.

Reminds me of the time I was coaching my 5th grader (who is now college freshman) ...We were a solid and fundamental team for our age...our team was ahead in a gam but we were beginning to play very erratic. The ball is being passed around the perimeter and I'm requesting time out...and as it gets to my best shooter, about the time the whistle blows to grant it, she's putting up a 3...swish! No shot...time out before the shot! Her Dad was so pissed at me!

But not as mad as the 2nd time it happened in that game about 2 minutes later! :eek::D

I finally told him I didn't give a damn about his daughter's PPG...I'm trying to teach these kids BBIQ and to understand game/clock management and we didn't need 3s at that point. Poor shot selection was allowing our opponent to get back in the game.

I'll bet he was really pissed when you told him his daughter's poor shot selection was the reason the opponent was climbing back into the game. :D:p

Grant it.

Helicopter Parents ...
 

Makes no nevermind. College coaches check out fifth grader statistics and grandmother videographer game videos online all the time. You cost his daughter a full ride to Notre Dame and a lucrative career in the WNBA.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.2...=0&w=300&h=300

Hahahaa...Yeah, I know...I know...always derailing the youth team member scholarships! I never put a lot of stock in the parents man. Been coaching kids so long and I know my players leave at the end of the season more skilled, and more importantly, smarter players after I coach them...I wouldn't change that for anything.

On a side note...she's now playing volleyball at the University of Indianapolis ...not sure if she'll play hoops but she was always a solid player in both sports as a kid coming up. Coached her in softball too for a couple years. She had a lot of drive as a kid and it obviously paid off for her.

Thanks for the replies fellas! In hindsight, I should have granted the TO. By the time the whistle would have blown the ball would have already been released on the shot and I'm sure confusion would have shown on everyone except for the HC.

All I can do is learn from these types of situations. I kinda already knew the responses I would get. A good reminder to be vigilant and stay ultra focused on the present moment while officiating.

This is one where you may want to come in strong with a heavy whistle and yelling..."no shot, timeout!!!"

You want to being doing that as soon as you can before the ball goes in or misses. Then, you can hope that it goes in and the other coach will be thrilled you granted the timeout and the one that called it can't complain either.

On a soccer forum I frequent, there is a "rep" button. I was looking for one here. This post sure deserves one!

Agreed!

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.

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, :eek:. 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. I don't care if fans scream at me or not, that's what the rule says so that's the way I'm calling it.

I'd much rather get yelled at after making the correct call than be yelled at after making the wrong one. In one case the rule book, my assignor, my peers, the state, and everyone else that knows or cares what the right call is will back me up. In the other case I'm alone on an island and could lose the confidence of my assignor, my assignor's peers, my fellow officials, and myself.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

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

I had a similar scenario in a middle school girls game. Home coach calls timeout when his team is on a fast break. His team had control of the ball when timeout is requested, so I grant the request. SMH at that decision, because that doesn't show good basketball IQ.

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.

No Shot ...
 

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.

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.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer. Therefore we're left with the saying "that's why we get paid the big bucks".

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Acknowledging And Granting Timeout Criteria ...
 

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.

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.

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.

Nothing better then giving a coach a TO and his player makes a shot lol

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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

That's what I've done as it's happened every once in a while.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

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.

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

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.

Things That Make You Go Hmmm ...
 

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.

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.8...=0&w=300&h=300

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

Granted ...
 

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.

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?

Global Warming ???
 

I sure hope that Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. doesn't freeze to death in his sub-freezing, Toledo, Ohio attic checking this out.

Exception ...
 

Ball is released and in flight before I sound my whistle (making it a dead ball) granting the head coach's request for a time out while his player has player control?

6-7 EXCEPTION: The ball does not become dead until the try or tap ends, or until the airborne shooter returns to the floor, when: Article 5 (official's whistle is blown) occurs while a try or tap for a field goal is in flight.

The ball isn't dead, count the basket, grant the timeout, run the endline after the timeout.

By rule it's the whistle that makes the ball dead, not the act of granting.

One of the rare exceptions to Basketball Rule Fundamental 16, the official’s whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead).

And if the shot is missed you are going to the AP arrow, correct?

Socratic Method ...
 

I believe so. No team control (when the unsuccessful try ended). By rule, what other choice do I have?

Nice followup question Raymond.

Are you a teacher?

Based on your application in the play where the ball goes into the basket, you would therefore have to use the AP arrow if the ball does not go in the basket.

I'm just imagining the fun you would have in a game where 8 seconds is remaining, Team A is losing by 2 points, AP arrow to Team B, time-out request, shot released, whistle blows, A1's "try" is an airball and is caught in the paint by A2.

You would then be sending the teams to their bench areas for Team A's time-out followed by giving the ball to Team B after the time-out due to the AP arrow.

The Rulebook Is My Friend ...
 

I knew that you were eventually going to go there, but when my assigner calls me the next morning, the rulebook is my friend. I hope that I decide to call him before he calls me.

Also, I'm not against bending some rules for the purpose of good game management. Especially when I can get together with my partner to discuss what "really happened" (wink ,wink).

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.

Rome, New York ???
 

Agree. I do the same thing, here on the Forum, and in real life. When in Rome ...

I also realize that 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, as I guess Raymond has, maybe even few more times around the block, and maybe even a few more rodeos for Raymond.

Grant Team A's TO request because there was PC by A1 when A-HC made the TO request. Any action after the request was made is not relevant unless it is a Intentional or Flagrant Foul.

MTD, Sr.

No Retroactive Dead Ball Here ...
 

By rule, the ball doesn't actually become dead until the whistle is blown by the official. There is no provision in the dead ball rule for the ball to become dead at either the request, or at the granting, only for an official's whistle. Everything is relevant until the whistle is sounded.

We can certainly debate whether, or not, the official should verify that the ball is still in player control after verifying that the request is being made by the head coach.

That specific issue is certainly up for debate. But please let's not use that specific issue to muddy the water in regard to when the ball actually becomes dead.

We cannot debate when the ball becomes dead. That's already in black and white in the rulebook. It becomes dead when the whistle sounds, there is no such thing as a "retroactive dead ball". The ball neither becomes dead at the request, nor at the granting, unless either happens simultaneously with the whistle.

You can look it up (Casey Stengel).

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.

Retroactive Dead Ball ...
 

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.

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.F...=0&w=300&h=300

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.

Intent And Purpose ...
 

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?

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.

Subtle Differences ...
 

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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.



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.

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

Moot ...
 

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.

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.

Quit making the coaches ignorant of the rules to avoid answering the question. But I'll play your game.

I just moved to Connecticut and I'm the coach. In the shooting situation, the request comes from a player who is in your visual field along with the shooter. What rules justification do you have to deny the time out in one situation and grant it in the other?

You gave a lecture about whistles making the ball dead in the shooting situation then say you ignore that principle in the OOB situation. Then you justify it not by the rule book, but by saying coaches are too stupid to figure out your contradiction.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

In Medio Stat Virtus (Horace) ...
 

Absolutely none, although the "release" situation would seldom happen to me because we "double verify" here in my area, and have been for twenty years.

I don't grant timeouts while a try is airborne. In this thread I was answering ("lecturing") for officials who might, as for an answer on a written exam. After research, I was actually surprised to discover that "granting a timeout" was not listed as one ways that the ball becomes dead, and that it's the whistle, not the granting, that makes the ball dead. I really did not expect to discover that.

There are dead balls that occur before a whistle is sounded, but a time out being granted (surprisingly to me) is not one of them.

If I were to ever grant during a released try in a real game, I would be wrong and I would have to deal with it like any other mistake. I have yet to work a perfect game.

I do grant timeouts to players flying out of bounds. No rule basis. No casebook basis. In thirty-eight years of officiating, working games, and observing an equal number of games, I have yet to see a single official deny such a request. Players, fans, coaches, my assigner, evaluators, and partners, all expect me to grant that request.

I don't sound my whistle when a free throw shooter has the ball for eleven seconds either. No rule basis. No casebook basis. I just don't because that's not the way we do things around here. And please don't ask me at what point I would sound my whistle, I have never reached that elusive number, not yet, but I know that if I ever get that far, I will sound my whistle using purpose and intent.

My assigner, my evaluators, and my partners, expect me to do things in certain ways. Sometimes 100% by the book, sometimes not quite by the book. Don't ask for a written list, there's not one, it's part of our culture and is learned through observation and experience.

Coaches, players, and fans in my area have also come to expect officials to do things in certain ways. Sometimes 100% by the book, sometimes not quite by the book, it's part of our basketball culture here in my local area.

As a young varsity official, I once called a punched ball violation when no other player was anywhere near the puncher. 100% by the book. Before the end of the tournament, my partner, and the more experienced guys who followed us, made it very known to me that I shouldn't do that again, and I haven't.

I don't believe that one can officiate well by going by the book 100%. I also don't think that one can officiate well not knowing the written rules and interpretations. In medio stat virtus (Horace).

Easy ...
 

Both in my visual field?

Shooter still has player control? Grant the timeout.

Shooter has released the shot? Deny the timeout request, play on.

Shooter is in the act of shooting but hasn't released the shot? Grant the timeout.

These are easy to explain to any coach or assigner.

Now the airborne player flying out of bounds is another story. Grant the timeout, no rules basis, no casebook basis, easy to explain to my assigner, impossible to explain to a very intelligent coach who just moved to Connecticut (see above post). Calling this won't lower any evaluation, and won't get me taken off the varsity list (I've already taken myself off the varsity list due to a chronic orthopedic problem). It may cost me one state tournament vote by the new coach, but I can live with that, and I won't lose any sleep over it (I only worked one varsity game this year, so I doubt that I'm getting more than two votes, if that, anyway).

The only time I would have to explain anything to any of my supervisors is if I fail to grant a time out because the whistle came after the shot was released or after the throw-in was released.

Every supervisor I've worked for expects us to grant the timeout based on the status of the ball when we recognized the time-out was being requested.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

When In Rome ...
 

Sounds like a good plan for you guys because it appears that you guys don't "double verify". And that's fine because the Point of Emphasis in 2016-17 is unclear in regard to such a "double verification".

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.

When in Rome ...

Granting Coaches Timeout Requests Since 1998 ...
 

5-8-3-A: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official: Grants and signals a player’s/head coach’s oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when: The ball is at the disposal or in control of a player of his/her team.

The actual rule seems more clear than the more recent, less clear, Point of Emphasis that may have muddied the water by using "may" instead of "shall".

2016-17 NFHS Basketball Points of Emphasis
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.

Verify or double verify? When in Rome ...

(Man, the title of this post would make a great signature, reminds me of the motto of our local, family owned trash company, "Serving Our Customers Since 1937". But I kind of like the one I'm currently using, it's tattooed on my left upper arm, and kind of important to me, and I like to share (not preach, just share). I'm a member of my church's prison ministry and my tattoos pale in comparison to tattoos of the inmates. In prison, I lose every single tattoo contest.)

[QUOTE=Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.;1029338]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?

Exactly. My apologies!
The intent of my question was, if play is ruled “retroactively dead” at the time of the request, shouldn’t the clock have been stopped as well? Obviously the timer cannot be expected to do so. However, it would be incumbent upon the official to first check the clock before verifying a head coach’s request before granting the time out so that the proper time can be put back on the clock. I think I would be correct in saying officials have never been instructed to do that likely because the concept of a "retroactive" dead ball is not supported by rule.

PS. Back in 2009 I worked a Boys State Regional at BGSU. Columbus DeSales and perhaps Perrysberg? Anyway, after the game an official and his son came up to our locker room to introduce themselves and congratulate us on the game. My guess is that it was you. Have always wanted to ask.

2016-17 NFHS Basketball POE Item (1) and Live Ball TO Requests.
 

I re-read 2016-17 NFHS Basketball POE Item (1) this morning and found what I believe are four relative sentences to our debate. I know that I have already made one long comment in this Thread but since this Thread has gone into multi-OT, why not keep this party going. So please be patient with me as everyone knows I love the sound of my voice.

I am not going to do any multi-quotes but will give the Page and Comment numbers and the Date and Time that it was posted of any Comment that I believe are relevant (footnotes so to speak). The relevant multi-quotes are:

I) The Original Comment that started this party was by Shane O, which is on Page 1, Comment #1, on Fri., Jan. 18, 2019, at 10:002amEST.

II) I added my first two cents on Page 2, Comment #19, Fri., Jan. 18, 2019, at 06:53pmEST.

III) My fellow NE Ohioan, BillyU, then commented on my Comment #19, on Page 2, Comment #25, Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 11:21amEST.

IV) My good friend and fellow IAABO member, BillyMac, on Page 2, Comment #27, Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 12:44pmEST, posted 2016-17 NFHS Basketball POE Item (1), which I will post, again, later in my Comment.

V) Camron Rust, made that same point that my Comment #19 made in his Comment #28, on Page 2, Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 01:09pmEST.

VI) BillyU replied to Camron's Comment #28 with Comment #29, on Page 2, on Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 02:16pmEST.

VII) BillyU's Comment #29 prompted So Cal Lurker's Comment #30, on Page 2, on Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 03:34pmEST.

VIII) I then posted one of my numerous opus magnus. See Comment #35, on Page 3, Tue., Jan. 22, Jan. 22, 2019, 01:54pmEST. This Comment also included Side Note 1 regarding my experience with HCs requesting TOs.

IX) My Comment #35 prompted BillyU to give us three very good Situations to consider in his Comment #36, on Page 3, Wed., Jan. 23, 2019, at 01:11pmEST.

X) And BillyU's Comment #36 prompted my Comment #42, on Page 3, Wed., Jan. 23, 2019, at 05:30pmEST.

XI) At this point BillyMac made a series of Comments defending the position that, while the A-HC's TO request was made while A1 had PC, if during the verification process before the Official can sound his whistle to grant A-HC's TO request, A1 loses PC (including a) Team A still has TC, or b) B1 gains PC), A-HC's request cannot be granted. BillyMac's position is the reason for my long comment today.

XII) And then yesterday, Fri., Jan. 25, 2019, at 07:27pm, I posted Comment #72.

Which, once again, brings us to 2016-17 NFHS Basketball POE Item (1):

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.

I have highlighted in red four sentences in Item (1) that are relevant to our discussion: Live Ball TO Requests.

Sentence 1: When a ball is live, player control is required. We can all agree that this is the prime requirement for Team A, to be in TC, to have its TO Request to be Granted, whether a Player of Team A or A-HC is making the Request.

Sentence 2: A player or the head coach of the team in possession may request and be granted a time-out. Sentences 1 and 2 go hand-in-hand.

Let us look at Sentences 1 and 2:
i) If there is no TC Team A's TO Request cannot be Granted.

ii) If there is TC then there also must be PC at the moment of Team A's TO Request for Team A's TO Request can be Granted.


Sentence 3: This request can be oral or visual, but must be verified by the ruling official. This sentence is the primary driving force in our discussion: The word "verified". The word "verified" leads to the question: What are the Officials "verifying?

Sentence 4: If the request meets criteria, a time-out should be granted. This sentence is the secondary driving force in our discussion: The word "criteria". The word "criteria" leads to the question: What are the "criteria" and how does it relate to "verifying"?

Let us look at Sentences 3 and 4:

iii) Sentence 4 is straight forward: It has to be "who" and "when" a TO can be requested during a Live Ball, see the above Item (ii).

iv) How do we answer the question regarding the word "verify" in Sentence 3?

The question in Sentence 3 has two possible answers.

1) First Requirement: Verify that there is PC a the moment the TO Request is made; Second Requirement: Verify that either a Player or the HC is making the Request; and Third Requirement: Verify that there is still PC after the Second Requirement has be met. If all three Requirements are met: Grant the TO. If only the first two Requirements are met: Do not Grant the TO. This is BillyMac's position from what I have gleaned from his Comments. If I am incorrect about his position I am sure that I will get an email from him letting me know what a doddering old fool I am (and I am a doddering old fool).

2) First Requirement: Verify that there is PC at the moment the TO is made, and Second Requirement: Verify that either a Player or the HC is making the Request. If both Requirements are met: Grant the TO.


I take the position of the Second Answer because: We know that we would not even entertain a Team's TO Request if none of its Players do not have PC. Therefore, if a Team does make its TO Request while it has PC, why would we deny its Request in the short time interval it takes to verify that its HC is the one that is making the TO Request.

MTD, Sr.

Mark, sentences 3 and 4 come under the dead ball category. A verified request can be always be granted immediately in most situations. Live Ball: A head coach can request a time out any time he wants: ball in flight on a try or pass, ball loose on the floor, even when the opponent has the ball. If the coach makes the request when a player of his has control, it simply means the HC made a valid request. Now the official can proceed. If the official is fortunate to see PC and the request at the same time, the procedure is to immediately grant the TO. Why would you use that same procedure in a different situation where the official must first verify it is the head coach? Things can and will happen during verification. The procedure must change from an immediate time out to a delayed time out. 1) The official verifies it is the head coach. 2) The official then ensures there is PC before granting the time out just like the rule says. If there is no PC, no whistle, no time out. And, anything that can and will happen during that brief interval (held ball, steal, CG count violation, dribble out of bounds, successful try for goal) stands because it occurred while the ball legally was live; not denied because the ball was illegally ruled dead at the time of the request.

I do not disagree with you about Sentences 3 and 4 applying to Dead Ball TO Requests, but they also apply to Live Ball TO Requests and that is what this Thread has been discussing.

MTD, Sr.

Dissection ...
 

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: While I disagree with you, I like the way you think, you think with the logical mind of a scientist (engineer), and aren't afraid to take your time doing it.

Could you please "dissect" the language of the actual rule (below) like you "dissected" the language of the Point of Emphasis, and then come up with some type of conclusion?

Thanks.

5-8-3-A: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official: Grants and signals a player’s/head coach’s oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when: The ball is at the disposal or in control of a player of his/her team.

Only Connecticut ...
 

Our IAABO Connecticut (100% IAABO) State Interpreter spoke and presented a Power Point at our local board meeting yesterday.

According to him, there are three steps to granting a timeout request to a head coach during a live ball, in proper order:

1) Confirm it's the head coach of the team in control.
2) Confirm his player has player control.
3) Grant the timeout.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that these guidelines should be followed by all officials, nor am I suggesting that these guidelines be followed by all IAABO officials, but our IAABO State Interpreter has made many presentations at International IAABO meetings, and is much respected in the IAABO community.

Of course, the usual caveat, when in Rome ...

Curious, as there is no mention of when the whistle occurs (i.e.: after try is released/after opponent steals ball/after player lands OOB). As I read it, if items 1 & 2 are satisfied you are to grant the time-out incidental to when the whistle actually blows.

Seldom Problems ...
 

I can't read is mind, but the granting of the timeout and the whistle occur simultaneously, and since the player has control (or doesn't have control) in the official's field of view, there would seldom be problems.

He spent most of his time speaking about officials (IAABO covers all levels of games here in Connecticut, middle school through varsity) who do not have the player in control in their primary converge area and grant the coach's request without looking for and checking the status of the ball before granting. I guess that that poor technique has led to some pretty ugly situations here in Connecticut, the type of "whistle" situations that have been described in this thread (shot, steal, etc.)

And, no, I didn't ask him about the player flying out of bounds (he only discussed coach requests). We've been calling that the same way (grant) since the glaciers melted here in Connecticut.

Billy:

I haven't forgotten you Comment. But I am working on a non-basketball project, betting known as a "Honey Do" project, and all know what that means. I will get back to your Comment early next week.

Mark, Sr. aka MTD, Sr.