The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 12:10am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
Unhappy NEW Case Book ruling!!!

There is an unannounced change in one of the Case Book rulings. I do not agree with the new ruling, but here is the change that the NFHS made:

2005-2006 Version:
5.12.4 SITUATION B: Regulation play ends with a tied score. Even though Team A has used all its allowed time-outs, A1 requests a time-out before the overtime period begins. RULING: The time-out is granted and results in a technical foul. The additional 60-second time-out provided for an overtime period cannot be used until the overtime has actually started with the ball becoming live. This overtime begins with the technical-foul free throws by Team B, followed by a division-line throw-in opposite the table. (10-1-7)

2006-2007 Version:
*5.12.4 SITUATION B: Regulation play ends with a tied score. Team A has used all of its allotted time-outs. Team A requests a time-out before the overtime period begins. RULING: The time-out should not be granted. The additional 60-second time-out provided for each extra period(s) shall not be granted until after the ball has become live to start the extra period(s).
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 12:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,108
Is there a web link available for this?

Thx.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 12:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
As I said this is an UNANNOUNCED change, so you aren't going to find anything on the web about it. This new ruling just appeared in this season's printed Case Book.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 06:32am
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
Huh??

Wait a minute. You are upset with a change that was made without fanfare and you disagree with the "change." When I raised the very same issue with a ruling that should be reflected in the casebook (and you cannot find anywhere in current NF literature) you went off about how dumb it was to ignore what that NF's rulings. Now you have a case play that is clearly illustrated and you know they are wrong?

My position has always been that the NF makes a lot of mistakes and every year they have to reference a correction in other sports because someone did not read what was actually in the book. In football this year there were about 3 plays that were totally wrong in the NF Casebook and had to be retracted to reflect the actual rules. Nevada, you on the other hand have done nothing but tell people how correct the NF is and now you are trying to say "you" know what is right. Your position sounds hypocritical if you ask me.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 08:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
There's no rule that prohibits a team from using a timeout when they don't have one. If they wnat one that badly, there's no rule that says it can't be granted and the T charged. Looks to me like the old case play was wrong.
Tony,
Look again. The old case play said that they could have the time-out. It is the NEW case play which says that they cannot!
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 08:57am
Lighten up, Francis.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
2006-2007 Version:
*5.12.4 SITUATION B: Regulation play ends with a tied score. Team A has used all of its allotted time-outs. Team A requests a time-out before the overtime period begins. RULING: The time-out should not be granted.
Ok, it shouldn't be granted. But what if you do grant it? What if you have a brain cramp, blow the whistle, announce "Time-out, blue", report it to the table, and then your partner comes over and tells you that you "shouldn't" grant the time-out?

Do you still follow the old case, since you've granted the time-out? Or do you go and tell everyone that there is no time-out?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 09:04am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrapper1
Ok, it shouldn't be granted. But what if you do grant it? What if you have a brain cramp, blow the whistle, announce "Time-out, blue", report it to the table, and then your partner comes over and tells you that you "shouldn't" grant the time-out?

Do you still follow the old case, since you've granted the time-out? Or do you go and tell everyone that there is no time-out?
I honestly have no idea. Furthermore, I don't even know if this would apply to that situation:
5.8.3 SITUATION E: The official erroneously grants Team B a time-out in a situation when Team B cannot have one. What happens now? RULING: Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was granted. The time-out once granted cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B. All privileges and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 09:12am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
There is an unannounced change in one of the Case Book rulings. I do not agree with the new ruling, but here is the change that the NFHS made:

2005-2006 Version:
5.12.4 SITUATION B: Regulation play ends with a tied score. Even though Team A has used all its allowed time-outs, A1 requests a time-out before the overtime period begins. RULING: The time-out is granted and results in a technical foul. The additional 60-second time-out provided for an overtime period cannot be used until the overtime has actually started with the ball becoming live. This overtime begins with the technical-foul free throws by Team B, followed by a division-line throw-in opposite the table. (10-1-7)

2006-2007 Version:
*5.12.4 SITUATION B: Regulation play ends with a tied score. Team A has used all of its allotted time-outs. Team A requests a time-out before the overtime period begins. RULING: The time-out should not be granted. The additional 60-second time-out provided for each extra period(s) shall not be granted until after the ball has become live to start the extra period(s).
At least they put the asterisk by the case play to note that it was new / changed.

I agree that the "old" case play was better -- from a game management standpoint, though, I would explain to the coach that s/he didn't get the extra TO until the OT started and ask if they still wanted the TO.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 09:22am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Posts: 718
5-12-2

Quote:
Time outs in excess of the allotted number may requested and shall be granted during regulation playing time or any extra period at the expense of a technical foul for each.
(italics mine)

One could argue that these words mean that regulation playing time has expired, and that the New period hasn't started.

Plus 5-12-4 says that a time out shall not granted using the new time out until after the overtime period starts.

If you interpret 5-12-2 the way it appears, then the Case Book ruling seems to make sense.

Last edited by Ignats75; Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 09:24am.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 10:15am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
Yeah, I thought of that rationale, but does that mean that a team cannot take a sixth time-out during halftime or the intermission between quarters because that is not DURING REGULATION PLAYING TIME?

How about during a dead ball period? One could interpret that as not DURING playing time!


We already have a rule which states that successive time-outs cannot be granted following the expiration of time in the fourth quarter is it really a big deal if a team takes one? Ironically, we now have the situation in which the team may take one of its five alloted time-outs prior to the extra period, but cannot be charged with a sixth one if they had already used their five? What is the rationale behind that?

Last edited by Nevadaref; Mon Nov 13, 2006 at 10:18am.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 10:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
Tony,
Look again. The old case play said that they could have the time-out. It is the NEW case play which says that they cannot!
Don't me confusing me with all these #$&#@#$ COLORS!!
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 10:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by BktBallRef
Don't me confusing me with all these #$&#@#$ COLORS!!
And those "b"s that look like "m"s.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 10:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 944
If a coach needs a timeout between the end of regulation and the jump ball administration, he needs to find a new line of work. I can't understand a coach who has six practices a week and an untold number of games under his belt in the season and in his career that can't put five players on the court for a jump ball without calling a timeout.
__________________
I couldn't afford a cool signature, so I just got this one.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 10:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
Neber sayed I kould tipe.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Mon Nov 13, 2006, 10:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimgolf
If a coach needs a timeout between the end of regulation and the jump ball administration, he needs to find a new line of work. I can't understand a coach who has six practices a week and an untold number of games under his belt in the season and in his career that can't put five players on the court for a jump ball without calling a timeout.
What if his player got injured and had to be attended to on the floor during the buzzer beater attempt? He would need to use a TO to keep this kid in the game and allow him to start the extra period. There are good reasons that this might come up.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Beyond the Case Book tcannizzo Softball 4 Mon May 08, 2006 03:11pm
Case Book 10.5.3 Sit. B ?? Buckeyes Football 2 Sun Aug 08, 2004 07:52pm
Case Book 10.3.6 APHP Basketball 3 Fri Oct 31, 2003 11:43pm
New Case Book Ruling APHP Basketball 5 Sat Aug 16, 2003 08:17pm
Case Book fletch_irwin_m Basketball 5 Sat Feb 08, 2003 02:40pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1