Time-out?
 

If there is no team or player control during a throw- in and to call a time out there must be team control.. Why can the inbounding team call a time out?

Because it specifically says they can.

Rule 5-8-3
…Grants a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when:
A. The ball is in control or at the disposal of a player of his/her team.
B. The ball is dead, unless replacement of a disqualified, or injured player(s), or a player directed to leave the game is pending, and a substitute(s) is available and required.

Tc
 

I believe that there is player control, just not team control, thus you may. Also like Snaqwells said it is a rule

Player control is established when a player is holding or dribbling a live ball inbounds.

So, not that I'm advocating putting the ball down ('cause this is the second time in two days I'm bringing it up), but if a team is late coming out of a time out for their throw-in, and the official puts the ball down on them, they could then request a second time out, since the ball is at their disposal? Never thought about that before.

Yes. And, if we change the situation from a throw in to a free throw, it's the only way for the team to avoid a violation.

Yes, the "offensive" team can request the time out, BUT since the ball is now "at the disposal" of the offensive team, the defensive team cannot call a TO. How DID peach baskets and an old ball become so complicated???

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by bob jenkins
Yes. And, if we change the situation from a throw in to a free throw, it's the only way for the team to avoid a violation.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Hmm. I guess you could come up with some other infractions that would make the ball dead that don't cancel the FT.....Team A could commit a foul, be fouled, have a player leave the court for an unauthorized reason, swing elbows, etc.

I think that Nevada is referring to the situation where the FT shooter isn't in the semi-circle when the official placed the ball at his disposal. If he comes in now, it's a violation. If he doesn't come in, it's gonna be a 10-second violation. Iow, no matter what, he's screwed.The question is whether calling a TO voids the violation or only delays it until after the TO.

Notice that I said that I <b>think</b> that's what Nevada was getting at.

I actually meant what Camron wrote. Specifically, I was thinking of a foul by Team B (personal or technical). Since the shooter is obviously not going to be in the act of shooting, the ball becomes dead and the FT would be readministered without a violation by Team A.

Of course, I'm being petty and really Bob is right that a time-out is the simplest way for Team A to avoid a violation. It's just not the only way. :)

FWIW, I believe that the after the TO the shooter would be allowed to enter the FT semi-circle without penalty.

I'd vote for no violation. In the situation where B steps in, then we have an A TO before the shot, the violation has actually occurred. We're simply delaying the penalty.

If A1 never stepped into the circle, no violation has occurred (assuming the TO was requested and granted before the 10 second count expired). Therefore, I have no penalty.

(This also fits the general pattern of A being able to use a timeout to avoid certain violations.)

Case book play 9.1.7 says "After the ball has been placed at the <b>disposal</b> of the free thrower, he/she is not permitted to leave <b>or enter</b> the free-throw semi-circle <b>without violating</b>, until restrictions have ended." According to rule 9-10, free throw restrictions are in place until the ball touches the ring or backboard or until the free throw ends.

Thoughts?:)

Interesting. Now, to bring in an NCAA case into this, let's say A1 has the ball for a FT, and B1 steps in the lane early. The official signals the delayed dead ball. Then, A's coach asks for, and is granted a TO. After the TO, we line up for the FT, and the delayed violation continues. Iow, if A1 misses, they are granted a replacement FT, because the TO does not wipe away the violation.

Again, this is an NCAA A.R., not a Fed. case play. But, in this case, the violation has already occured. In JR's case, a violation has not yet occured.

Hmm...