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?

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.

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

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

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?

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."

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 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."

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.

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

Read the OP again. Violation whistle was first.

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

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.

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.

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

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.:)

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

: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.

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.

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.

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......

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

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

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