TO before throw-in violation?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Ray_from_Mi

At the 4 1/2 sec. mark the coach asks me for a TO.....

You say, "Sorry, but he's in Dallas, thank God."

Seriously, how could you possibly know that your partner's count was at the 4 1/2 second mark? He counted 5, then blew his whistle. You heard the coach request time-out, then blew your whistle. I would assume there would be a tiny lag in both cases. In this case it seems that which whistle came first would be the determining factor.

[Texas Aggie]

At the 4 1/2 sec. mark the coach asks me for a TO, as I recognize it and before I can blow the whistle, the L blows his and signals a 5 sec. call.

I agree with J-A-R. You have to assume that your lag time (request to whistle) is the same as your partners (violation to whistle). That's exactly what I'm telling the coach if he asks after I tell him, "sorry, coach, he had the violation at or before your request."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You say, "Sorry, but he's in Dallas, thank God."

Seriously, how could you possibly know that your partner's count was at the 4 1/2 second mark? He counted 5, then blew his whistle. You heard the coach request time-out, then blew your whistle. I would assume there would be a tiny lag in both cases. In this case it seems that which whistle came first would be the determining factor.

You're changing the case. In the OP, the official who granted the TO blew his whistle first. Even by your standard the TO occurs before the violation.

Your case is harder, but the TO was still granted before the violation occurred.

[bigdogrunnin]

Give the timeout. The request was made before the violation. And, add what BITS said.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You're changing the case. In the OP, the official who granted the TO blew his whistle first. Even by your standard the TO occurs before the violation.

Your case is harder, but the TO was still granted before the violation occurred.

Read the OP again. Violation whistle was first.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Read the OP again. Violation whistle was first.

Oops. Quite right. Well, ignore the easy case I mistakenly brought up.

[Junker]

If the whistle for the violation is clearly first, you have no choice but to move on. By the same token, if the TO whistle was first, grant the TO. If there's any doubt, sprint over to your partner and decide what the two of you have.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Junker

If the whistle for the violation is clearly first, you have no choice but to move on. By the same token, if the TO whistle was first, grant the TO. If there's any doubt, sprint over to your partner and decide what the two of you have.

Sorry, no. The whistle has nothing to do with whether a timeout is granted or not.

[Man In Blue]

The reason it is a big deal is that the other team has been playing great defense and you just bailed out the offense.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Junker

If there's any doubt, sprint over to your partner and decide what the two of you have.

That's the key right there. If there's any doubt, you have to decide between yourselves what happened first-- the violation or the time-out request.

Whatever you decide is fine with me.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You say, "Sorry, but he's in Dallas, thank God."

Seriously, how could you possibly know that your partner's count was at the 4 1/2 second mark? He counted 5, then blew his whistle. You heard the coach request time-out, then blew your whistle. I would assume there would be a tiny lag in both cases. In this case it seems that which whistle came first would be the determining factor.

I grant the timeout. Any time a team is willing to trade a timeout for a single possession, I'll go out of my way to accommodate.

But seriously, I can see my partner's arm swing. If his fifth arm swing hasn't completed when the coach asks, why wouldn't you grant it?

I just don't see the benefit of being a hard *** in this situation. Same as in the other thread.