The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   TO before throw-in violation? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/30486-before-throw-violation.html)

Ray_from_Mi Wed Dec 27, 2006 09:18pm

TO before throw-in violation?
 
Had this happen and would like some views on how it could be handled. I'm the T and the L is inbounding on the base line table side. I'm right next to the coach who's team is inbounding. 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. It was bang,bang situation. he looked at me as though I was going to overide the L's whistle, however, I said that he needs to call that earlier, so that I can respond to his request. How would you have handled this same sit?

Back In The Saddle Wed Dec 27, 2006 09:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray_from_Mi
Had this happen and would like some views on how it could be handled. I'm the T and the L is inbounding on the base line table side. I'm right next to the coach who's team is inbounding. 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. It was bang,bang situation. he looked at me as though I was going to overide the L's whistle, however, I said that he needs to call that earlier, so that I can respond to his request. How would you have handled this same sit?

You recognized the request before the 5 second violation was called. If it were me, I'm hitting the whistle good and loud and going to my partner and telling him I've got a time out before the violation. Then unless he's got some compelling reason why the violation actually occurred first, I'm granting the timeout. This may also require an explanation to the other coach, which I will happily give after I get his team moving to their bench and report the timeout (which will make it a moot point and should do quite a bit to deflate any argument he may want to make)

Of course, that's predicated on my argument in the other thread that granting and whistling are not the same act.

Ed Maeder Wed Dec 27, 2006 09:30pm

If the coach requested it before the throw-in violation grant the time-out.

Johnny Ringo Wed Dec 27, 2006 09:31pm

Backinthesaddle has this right. As long as you were told the request before your partner had the violation I am granting the TO.

BktBallRef Wed Dec 27, 2006 09:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray_from_Mi
Had this happen and would like some views on how it could be handled. I'm the T and the L is inbounding on the base line table side. I'm right next to the coach who's team is inbounding. 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. It was bang,bang situation. he looked at me as though I was going to overide the L's whistle, however, I said that he needs to call that earlier, so that I can respond to his request. How would you have handled this same sit?

Ray, a player leaps to save a ball from going OOB. While airborne, he yells for a timeout. Before you can blow the whistle, he lands OOB. Do you grant the timeout?

How is your play any different?

Ray_from_Mi Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:31pm

Okay, thanks for the input. Now from another perspective. L has his whistle 1st, then me. I go see the L and tell him the request came before his whistle. I go to grant the TO and now the other coach is asking why the TO? the L's whistle came 1st. It would now look like I'm overiding my partner's call. The other coach now thinks I'm favoring the coach who called the TO after the violation which would have given him the ball in a close game with 45 ticks left. Is this why we're paid the big $?

Back In The Saddle Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray_from_Mi
Okay, thanks for the input. Now from another perspective. L has his whistle 1st, then me. I go see the L and tell him the request came before his whistle. I go to grant the TO and now the other coach is asking why the TO? the L's whistle came 1st. It would now look like I'm overiding my partner's call. The other coach now thinks I'm favoring the coach who called the TO after the violation which would have given him the ball in a close game with 45 ticks left. Is this why we're paid the big $?

"Coach, he made his request just before the 5 seconds ran out. I'd do the same for you."

just another ref Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:26am

Quote:

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.":D

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 Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:53am

Quote:

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 Thu Dec 28, 2006 09:30am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref
You say, "Sorry, but he's in Dallas, thank God.":D

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 Thu Dec 28, 2006 09:39am

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

Adam Thu Dec 28, 2006 09:50am

Quote:

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 Thu Dec 28, 2006 09:59am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Read the OP again. Violation whistle was first.

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

Junker Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:47am

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 Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:51am

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref
You say, "Sorry, but he's in Dallas, thank God.":D

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.

Rich Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:51am

Quote:

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.

Jurassic Referee Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:59am

Quote:

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 <b>violation</b> or the time-out <b>request</b>.

Whatever you decide is fine with me.:)

Man In Blue Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:59am

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 Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:05am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

How so if the offense made a legitimate and legal timeout request?:confused:

OHBBREF Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:18pm

1) Rich - quit watching your partner's count and counting with him - pay attention to the holding goiing on in the corner.

2) You have to talk this over with your partner, before you do anything else, If you go to your partner and say I had a coaches request for time out before you blew the violation - then it is up to your partner to decide what to do.
you are not going to make someone happy but get the call right.

3) You are not bailing out the offence in this situation - yes the defense did a fine job but only for 4.5 seconds when the time out was called legitimately by the coach of the offense. That is a reward to the defence also they forced the coach to burn a time out.

Rich Thu Dec 28, 2006 01:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by OHBBREF
1) Rich - quit watching your partner's count and counting with him - pay attention to the holding goiing on in the corner.

2) You have to talk this over with your partner, before you do anything else, If you go to your partner and say I had a coaches request for time out before you blew the violation - then it is up to your partner to decide what to do.
you are not going to make someone happy but get the call right.

3) You are not bailing out the offence in this situation - yes the defense did a fine job but only for 4.5 seconds when the time out was called legitimately by the coach of the offense. That is a reward to the defence also they forced the coach to burn a time out.

I can't believe you're serious, but I'll act like you are and impart some "wisdom" right back at you.

It's called peripheral vision and court awareness. I know where my partner's count is without staring at his arm. I'm aware of subs coming to the table without waiting for a horn, too. I know when we're in the bonus and under a minute in the period without staring at the scoreboard, too.

It's not up to the partner. The timeout takes priority. I'm already reporting the timeout to the table. And I'd expect my partner to do the same if he was the one with the timeout.

Rich Thu Dec 28, 2006 01:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Teams get 5 timeouts. If they burn one over one possession, it is a pretty good tradeoff for the defense. And they can play good defense again.

OHBBREF Thu Dec 28, 2006 01:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser
I can't believe you're serious, but I'll act like you are and impart some "wisdom" right back at you.

I left out the Smile - :D
Yes even without peripherial vision you better have an idea of how close your partner is to five seconds.

BktBallRef Thu Dec 28, 2006 01:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray_from_Mi
Okay, thanks for the input. Now from another perspective. L has his whistle 1st, then me. I go see the L and tell him the request came before his whistle. I go to grant the TO and now the other coach is asking why the TO? the L's whistle came 1st. It would now look like I'm overiding my partner's call. The other coach now thinks I'm favoring the coach who called the TO after the violation which would have given him the ball in a close game with 45 ticks left. Is this why we're paid the big $?

You tell the other coach that the TO request came before the violation, which whistle sounded first is of no consequence and that he would have been given the same consideration had it been him asking for a TO.

Don't make/not make a call because you're afraid of what a coach might say.

BktBallRef Thu Dec 28, 2006 01:16pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

When they make a rule that says the coach can't request TO during a count, then I'll concern myself with your issue.

Until then, the coach has a perfectly legal right to burn a TO if he so chooses. And if he does it before my partner reaches the end of his count, then he's the one who has made a great play.

Like it or not, that is the rule.

just another ref Thu Dec 28, 2006 01:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BktBallRef
You tell the other coach that the TO request came before the violation, which whistle sounded first is of no consequence........

We're talking about 2 officials making 2 separate calls on opposite sides of the gym a half second apart.
If you don't go by the whistle, how did you decide which came first?

Rich Thu Dec 28, 2006 01:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref
We're talking about 2 officials making 2 separate calls on opposite sides of the gym a half second apart.
If you don't go by the whistle, how did you decide which came first?

Because I know if the TO request came before 5 or after 5. As should you. The whistle rarely makes the ball dead. Fundamentals.

Jurassic Referee Thu Dec 28, 2006 01:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref
We're talking about 2 officials making 2 separate calls on opposite sides of the gym a half second apart.
If you don't go by the whistle, how did you decide which came first?

You go and talk to the other official and decide which act took place first. See case book plays 2.6SitA&B. Same concept exactly.

mplagrow Thu Dec 28, 2006 01:58pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser
It's called peripheral vision and court awareness. I know where my partner's count is without staring at his arm.

:confused:
Really? I almost never know where my partner's count is. Of all the little things that I have to keep track of on the court, that is not one of them. I trust him to count to 5 or 10 without my backup.

just another ref Thu Dec 28, 2006 01:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser
Because I know if the TO request came before 5 or after 5. As should you. The whistle rarely makes the ball dead. Fundamentals.

The whistle didn't make the ball dead, the violation did, which came before the whistle. If you have your own count going, fine, but how could it possibly be perfectly coordinated with that of the official administering the throw-in?

Dan_ref Thu Dec 28, 2006 02:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref
The whistle didn't make the ball dead, the violation did, which came before the whistle. If you have your own count going, fine, but how could it possibly be perfectly coordinated with that of the official administering the throw-in?

Actually on a count the whistle can and should coincide almost exactly with the violation.

just another ref Thu Dec 28, 2006 02:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
You go and talk to the other official and decide which act took place first.

Agreed. I don't understand what Rich is saying that he knows whether the request was before or after 5. Even after conferring with partner, it could be difficult to decide.

just another ref Thu Dec 28, 2006 02:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref
Actually on a count the whistle can and should coincide almost exactly with the violation.


Agreed. Your point being that this whistle can be anticipated so it should be closer to the actual time of the violation than the one made by the other official who had to see the request and then react. This is a good point, but we are still talking about a half a second......

Jurassic Referee Thu Dec 28, 2006 02:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref
The whistle didn't make the ball dead, the violation did, which came before the whistle.

Yup.....and if you <b>grant</b> a TO before a violation, the whistle for the TO doesn't make the ball dead either. The <b>granting</b> of the TO did. That's why an OOB violation can't be made <b>after</b> the TO was granted and the ball became dead because of the granting.

Or do you wanna argue with yourself for a while now?:D

just another ref Thu Dec 28, 2006 02:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
.....the ball became dead because of the granting.

Or do you wanna argue with yourself for a while now?:D

Been arguing with myself for days, it seems. When the granting takes place
was/is the gray area for me, but I officially surrendered on the other thread.


Please, nobody have your kids make fun of my kids at school because of all this. :D

Jurassic Referee Thu Dec 28, 2006 03:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by just another ref
I officially surrendered on the other thread.


http://1000smilies.com/animated/surrendering.gif
:D


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1