A slightly interesting one

[JugglingReferee]

Here's the stich.

This actually happened in a provincial high school finals game.

Team W and Team L. (Named after the city they're from.) There is one official from the city of W and one from the city of L, to give a "neutral crew". Officials tell each team that they have no timeouts remaining. Twice. They also tell the players. The coaches each told their respective players that there are no timeouts left.

Tie game, 5 seconds to go. L1 on the line to shoot a 1-and-1. First shot misses. W1 rebounds. The LEAD official on the FT (now the TRAIL on the defensive missed-FT rebound) is from the city of W and twice ignores W2's request for a TO. W2 runs over to the ref from the city of L and requests a TO. The timeout is granted (in that the official blew his whistle - I do not know if he 'pointed' to the Team W bench). At the time of the whistle, there was 1.0 seconds on the clock. The clock runs out and the buzzer sounds.

What happens next?

I will post what the officials did later on, after a bunch of replies.

[ChuckElias]

Here's that lag time thing again. By interpretation, the timer is allowed up to, but not more than, one second to stop the clock from the time that the official's signal is clearly recognized.

I'd have to say that the game is over.

[refnrev]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JugglingReferee
[B]Here's the stich.


Tie game, 5 seconds to go. L1 on the line to shoot a 1-and-1. First shot misses. W1 rebounds. The LEAD official on the FT (now the TRAIL on the defensive missed-FT rebound) is from the city of W and twice ignores W2's request for a TO. W2 runs over to the ref from the city of L and requests a TO. The timeout is granted (in that the official blew his whistle - I do not know if he 'pointed' to the Team W bench). At the time of the whistle, there was 1.0 seconds on the clock. The clock runs out and the buzzer sounds.
__________________________________________________ _________
posted by refnrev
1. Why did he ignore the request for a TO? Once I can see. Twice is suspect.
2. Did the official who granted the TO give the T?
3. Did they consider it a timer's error and put time on since there was only 1.0 left?
__________________________________________________ _________
Here's my guess on what happened: "W ignores the TO requests and then "L" grants it. L gives them a T for the extra T0. Because there is 1.0 on the clock and the clock didn't stop the game would be over except for the T. W hits one of the free throws. L fan's and coaches go nuts. Do I win?



[Edited by refnrev on Mar 16th, 2005 at 11:39 PM]

[tjones1]

Agree, I think the game is over too. Question is why didn't the official grant the excessive timeout?

[Mark Padgett]

It's a T and you shoot the two free throws. Lag time doesn't apply here since both officials have definite knowledge the technical foul happened before the end of the period.

Supporting NF rules are 5-6-3a and 3-3-2. The latter explains when a foul should be disregarded at the end of a quarter and this situation does not qualify.

[ChuckElias]

Yep, sorry, I missed the part about it being a tie game. I still hold that you can't put any time back up, but you do assess the T and shoot the FTs if the whistle sounded before the horn.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
Here's the stich.

This actually happened in a provincial high school finals game.

Team W and Team L. (Named after the city they're from.) There is one official from the city of W and one from the city of L, to give a "neutral crew". Officials tell each team that they have no timeouts remaining. Twice. They also tell the players. The coaches each told their respective players that there are no timeouts left.

Tie game, 5 seconds to go. L1 on the line to shoot a 1-and-1. First shot misses. W1 rebounds. The LEAD official on the FT (now the TRAIL on the defensive missed-FT rebound) is from the city of W and twice ignores W2's request for a TO. W2 runs over to the ref from the city of L and requests a TO. The timeout is granted (in that the official blew his whistle - I do not know if he 'pointed' to the Team W bench). At the time of the whistle, there was 1.0 seconds on the clock. The clock runs out and the buzzer sounds.

What happens next?

I will post what the officials did later on, after a bunch of replies.

1) I am going to assume that the game was being played under either NFHS or NCAA rules.

2) In either case, the T was wrong in not granting W1's request for a timeout.

3) W1's request should have been granted.

4) After the timeout is over, Team L shoots two free throws as part of the penalty for the excess timeout technical foul.

5.1) NFHS: After the free throws, Team L receives the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the Table for a throw-in.

5.2) NCAA Men's: After the free throws, Team W receives that ball for a throw-in nearest the spot where the ball was when it was granted its timeout.

5.3) NCAA Women's: After the free throws, Team L receives the ball for a throw-in: a) nearest the spot where the ball was when Team W was granted its timeout, or b) at the division line. Since this is not a point of interuption technical foul penalty, I think that the correct throw-in spot is (a). My college schedule did not include any women's games this year so I am a little hazy on this particular penalty.

6) If this game was being played under FIBA rules Team W would never had been able to request an excess timeout.

7) I do not know how this would be handled under NBA/WNBA rules.

MTD, Sr.

[tjones1]

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Yep, sorry, I missed the part about it being a tie game. I still hold that you can't put any time back up, but you do assess the T and shoot the FTs if the whistle sounded before the horn.

Wooo, you're not the only one, I missed it too.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

5.1) NFHS: After the free throws, Team L receives the ball for a throw-in at the division line opposite the Table for a throw-in.

5.2) NCAA Men's: After the free throws, Team W receives that ball for a throw-in nearest the spot where the ball was when it was granted its timeout.

5.3) NCAA Women's: After the free throws, Team L receives the ball for a throw-in: a) nearest the spot where the ball was when Team W was granted its timeout, or b) at the division line. Since this is not a point of interuption technical foul penalty, I think that the correct throw-in spot is (a). My college schedule did not include any women's games this year so I am a little hazy on this particular penalty.

Are you gonna put time back on the clock for all three rule sets, Mark? Including FED?

[Nevadaref]

I agree with those who have said that the T was wrong to ignore the request. Also, I concur that the T should be assessed with no time left in regulation and 2 FTs awarded. No time should be put back on clock.

In this case a single made FT will end the game since the FTs are part of the 4th quarter.


Lastly, the throw-in is at the division line for the opponent following the FTs for the excessive TO in NCAA women's play.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Are you gonna put time back on the clock for all three rule sets, Mark? Including FED?

JR:

I am tired of discussing timing problems. If the T had granted the timeout like he should have, there would have been no timing problem.

MTD, Sr.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]

If the T had granted the timeout like he should have, there would have been no timing problem.

[/B][/QUOTE]I agree that the trail shoulda called the TO. There was no reason to ignore the request(especially twice), and I imagine that whoever was evaluating the game probably brought that fact up to the T. Basically, though, this really isn't relevant to this sitch, is it? It's just a missed call, and you can't give it CPR and bring it back to life, can you?

But, in this sitch, the L finally did grant the TO request with one second to go. The timer then ran the one second off. As this was a high school game, would you really put the second back up after the FT's for the T and have a throw-in? Or was I reading your post wrong?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
Here's the stich.

This actually happened in a provincial high school finals game.

Team W and Team L. (Named after the city they're from.) There is one official from the city of W and one from the city of L, to give a "neutral crew". Officials tell each team that they have no timeouts remaining. Twice. They also tell the players. The coaches each told their respective players that there are no timeouts left.

Tie game, 5 seconds to go. L1 on the line to shoot a 1-and-1. First shot misses. W1 rebounds. The LEAD official on the FT (now the TRAIL on the defensive missed-FT rebound) is from the city of W and twice ignores W2's request for a TO. W2 runs over to the ref from the city of L and requests a TO. The timeout is granted (in that the official blew his whistle - I do not know if he 'pointed' to the Team W bench). At the time of the whistle, there was 1.0 seconds on the clock. The clock runs out and the buzzer sounds.

What happens next?

I will post what the officials did later on, after a bunch of replies.

Here's what the TRAIL official called:

He whistled and granted a TO.

After the timeout, he then assessed a technical foul and awarded L3 two shots. First one went in. Game over.

Congrats to refnrev for calling the bank! (Except that he reversed the city references.)

Points that were brought up:
1. How can you grant a timeout with no time on the clock. Once the buzzer went, the quarter ended. Game tied means that OT starts right after 4Q ends. A TO to start the OT is granted.

My reply was that in sitch's like this, the lag time rule is a rule that is invoked after all other rules have been completed. It's sole purpose it to determine how much time remains on the clock, not when an event occurred. So, the rule governing the granting and penalizing an excessive timeout is not ignored. It just so happens that the team's request was granted with less than 1.1 seconds to go.

The person disagreeing with me does so on game management grounds. To me, this is a situation where game management can't do anything to save the day. The only arguement I can see is the official from the city of W says something like he went to blow his whistle, but no air came out. He could claim that he saw (picking an arbitrary amount of time) 3.7 seconds on the clock.

W2 pulled a Webber. A million chinese won't care tomorrow.

[bigwhistle]

Originally posted by Nevadaref


Lastly, the throw-in is at the division line for the opponent following the FTs for the excessive TO in NCAA women's play.

Really? That is a new one on me. The ball will belong to the team that did not call the excessive time out. They will get the ball at the POI spot, however, instead of the division line.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by bigwhistle

Really? That is a new one on me. The ball will belong to the team that did not call the excessive time out. They will get the ball at the POI spot, however, instead of the division line.

You're right bigwhistle...it's still a POI - 10-4-1-a