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...

Yes. You're mixing manure again.

Suppose A1 was in the circle, then A was granted a TO. Clearly A1 can leave teh circle for the TO, then return for the FT. The same applies to A1 not bing in the circle and A being granted a TO.

The ruling is the same in both codes.

JR? Manure-mixer? Imagine that.

I wasn't sure when I started typing, that's why I stated the NCAA ruling. Does it show as a case play somewhere?

Before the TO is granted, no.

I forgot to note here that team control is not an issue; player control is (or 'at the disposal of').

I like your thinking, but 4-20-3 comes into play and states that "The free throw ends when the try is successful, when it is certain the try will not become successful, when the try touches the floor or any player, or when the ball becomes dead." When the timeout is granted, the ball is dead, the free throw has ended and we can no longer have this specific violation on the shooter.

Ok, then why can't we have this specific violation, but the TO doesn't wipe out the other violation I mentioned?

And, if you're saying the FT ended, how come the player gets to do it again when they come back out after the TO?

<font size =-2>(Hey, this manure-stirring is kinda fun.)</font size>

I think because 9-1-Penalties-2 essentially states that that particular try must occur and subsequently be unsuccessful for the violation to be penalized.

Good question. I figured this would come up. I'm having trouble finding the NFHS ruling which allows the delayed violation on B to be called after a timeout. Anyone care to point me in the right direction?

Holy manure-stirring semantics, M&MMan!

From what I can find, I understand what you're saying here. The free throw definition rule states specifically that the free throw ends when the ball becomes dead (which is what happens when a time-out is granted), and the Rule 10 Summary never uses the word "attempt" - only the term "free throw."

So foul with two free throws awarded. Ball is at the shooter's disposal. Free throw begins here. Shooting team requests and is granted a time-out. Free throw ends here.

1st free throw over? :)

Better yet, what about the front end of a 1 and 1 - same scenario? After the time-out: ball to B on the baseline? ;)

Three answers with one case book play!
 

<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 Mark Dexter
Good question. I figured this would come up. I'm having trouble finding the NFHS ruling which allows the delayed violation on B to be called after a timeout. Anyone care to point me in the right direction?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


<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 M&M Guy
I wasn't sure when I started typing, that's why I stated the NCAA ruling. Does it show as a case play somewhere?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

9.1.4 SITUATION C: A1 is preparing to attempt a free throw. Prior to A1's release of the ball, B1 fakes causing A2 to enter the lane prematurely. A1 then requests and is granted a time-out. RULING: Upon resuming play, A1 is entitled to a free throw and the official shall use the proper signal indicating a violation by B1 prior to the granting of the time-out. If the free throw is successful, the violation is ignored, if unsuccessful a substitute throw is awarded.



<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 HawkeyeCubP
Holy manure-stirring semantics, M&MMan!

From what I can find, I understand what you're saying here. The free throw definition rule states specifically that the free throw ends when the ball becomes dead (which is what happens when a time-out is granted), and the Rule 10 Summary never uses the word "attempt" - only the term "free throw."

So foul with two free throws awarded. Ball is at the shooter's disposal. Free throw begins here. Shooting team requests and is granted a time-out. Free throw ends here.

1st free throw over? :)

Better yet, what about the front end of a 1 and 1 - same scenario? After the time-out: ball to B on the baseline? ;)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

That FT is over, but the player is still entitled to a FT attempt which has yet to occur. Therefore, the game is resumed with a new FT for that player. That's what it says in 9.1.4 Sit C.