rolling the ball in the backcourt
 

I just got back from a 5th and 6th grade game and saw this curious thing. There's about 15 seconds left in the game and team A is inbounding from the baseline in their backcourt. They try to save time and roll the ball in the backcourt so the clock will not start. Anyway, the coach calls a timeout while the ball is rolling and the referee grants him the timeout and ball at the point the coach wanted the time out (at just before halfcourt) but before any of the boys have touched/picked up the ball. This can't be the right call can it?

Nope, the team had to have player contol of the ball inbounds ( holding or dribbling the ball) before a time-out request should have been granted. The official made the wrong call. Once he did blow his whistle though, he still does have to grant the time-out request, whether it was wrongly made or not.

And once he does this, he has an inadvertant whistle during a throw-in. So the ball is put back in play at the point of interruption which is that team's throw-in at the original throw-in spot.

Coach A or any A player has the right to a timeout in this case.

Coach B, as JR & Chuck said, does not.

That can't be true.
Team A is inbounding, so per the other posters team A cannot call a timeout until they take possession of the ball [same as if a pass is in the air].
Team B cannot call a timeout once the ball is at the disposal of the thrower and certainly not until the ball becomes dead.

DOH!

Sorry. My first mistake this week.

relief!!
 

Ah - rather you than me!! :)
I was wondering what fault would lie in my post... whew!

Question since I am nowhere near a rulebook right now.

In FED since there is no team control during a throw-in would we be going to the AP arrow? Does the NFHS rulebook address inadvertant whistles during a throw-in???

Rule 4-36-2(b)- "Play shall be resumed by a free throw or a <b>throw-in</b> when the stoppage occurred <b>during</b> this activity or if a team is entitled to such".

Chuck had it right.

Now, if a player hadda touched the throw-in and you then had an IW before player control was established, then you would have to go to the AP.....and probably also have had to dump the team A coach if B has the arrow. :)

JR gave you the rule reference. The reason that you might not remember it immediately is that it was a new rule last year and probably didn't get used very often. When they added the "point of interruption" rule, they included inadvertant whistles among the times you use the POI.

Realistically, I'd probably give the ball to team A, but I want to throw this other rule reference out there for discussion.

I agree with BadNewsRef in that the throw-in should be resumed by the alternating possession arrow. Part c of the same rule that JR quoted (4-36-2c) says, "An alternating-possession throw-in when the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved."

When I read that rule I am led to believe that the play does not involve an infraction because to me that's either a violation or a foul and not an inadvertent whistle.

Thoughts?!?

...team A was in control, so POI would not apply - there was just no player control.
Were you implying that perhaps because of no player control, then the POI would be correct?

Realistically, you'd deliberately give the ball to the <b>wrong</b> team for a throw-in? Oh my......:rolleyes:

Thoughts?

How can you say the above when R4-36-1 says "method of resuming play due to an <b>official's accidental whistle</b>"? The "accidental whistle" occured <b>DURING</b> a throw-in. You've got a very definitive ruling to use right out of the rule book in R4-36-2(b), and you want to say it's not applicable.

Lah me.....

You're correct if you're playing under NCAA rules, but under NFHS, there is no TEAM control in a throw-in situation until the ball is controlled by a player.

I think you should post the entire rule reference of 4-36 with all articles for everyone. You're taking parts of it here and there to make it applicable to the scenario to justify your argument.