Timeout during free throw?????

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I see nothing which has made the ball become dead. It was placed at the disposal of the FT shooter, at which time it became live.

The FT shooter clearly could have requested a TO while he had the ball, since he has player control, however once he loses it the conditions of 5-8-3 aren't met. Thus no TO request should be granted.

Well let's see...the ball was at the disposal of the FT shooter by 8-1. And 5-8-3a says we can grant a TO request when the ball is at the disposal of a player. By what rule is the ball no longer at the disposal in this sitch?

[JoeTheRef]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Well let's see...the ball was at the disposal of the FT shooter by 8-1. And 5-8-3a says we can grant a TO request when the ball is at the disposal of a player. By what rule is the ball no longer at the disposal in this sitch?

That was my point as well Dan. If we put the ball down at the spot to resume play on a throw in, the ball is at the disposal, the ball is live and the offensive team can call a timeout without somebody actually coming to get the ball. So because the player doesn't have the ball in his hands for the free throw in this sitch, it still at his disposal.

[Scrapper1]

There's no longer player control, but does that matter to this situation?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

Well let's see...the ball was at the disposal of the FT shooter by 8-1. And 5-8-3a says we can grant a TO request when the ball is at the disposal of a player. By what rule is the ball no longer at the disposal in this sitch?

The ball is no longer at his disposal because it is somewhere where he cannot go to get it. In other words it is not like a throw-in placed on the floor. In that case the ball is somewhere where a player from the team may legally get it. In this case the player clearly cannot go get the ball.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The ball is no longer at his disposal because it is somewhere where he cannot go to get it. In other words it is not like a throw-in placed on the floor. In that case the ball is somewhere where a player from the team may legally get it. In this case the player clearly cannot go get the ball.

Where does it say disposal 'ends' when the ball is somehwhere the player can't get it?

btw, in the resuming play scenario the FTer can't legally get the ball.

How is this play different?

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The ball is no longer at his disposal because it is somewhere where he cannot go to get it.

Consider a completley different situation, but one that is covered clearly by the rules and cases.

A1 is awarded 2 FTs. A time-out is then granted. After the time-out, the official is ready to administer the FT, but A1 is not in the semi-circle. The official correctly places the ball on the floor inside the semi-circle. At this point, two things are true:

1) The ball is at the disposal of A1
2) A1 cannot go get the ball without violating.

Seems to me your point is not supported by the rules. JMHO.
__________________________________________________ _________

Edit: Jeez, Dan_ref beat me by about 3 minutes.

[jritchie]

From what I have read and heard arguments from, I'm going to have to go with, that this was a legal play by the officials. All because of the word OR in the rule! It's says in possession OR at the disposal, so I'm going to give the time out, but I do agree I would have to try and get a whistle before the timeout is asked for to get the ball back to the shooter and reset the free throw!

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Consider a completley different situation, but one that is covered clearly by the rules and cases.

A1 is awarded 2 FTs. A time-out is then granted. After the time-out, the official is ready to administer the FT, but A1 is not in the semi-circle. The official correctly places the ball on the floor inside the semi-circle. At this point, two things are true:

1) The ball is at the disposal of A1
2) A1 cannot go get the ball without violating.

Seems to me your point is not supported by the rules. JMHO.
__________________________________________________ _________

Edit: Jeez, Dan_ref beat me by about 3 minutes.

Since RPP isn't in effect in this case, it doesn't matter. Whether the FT can enter the semi circle and get a ball put there WHEN HE WASN'T IN THERE isn't relevant to this situation. So we don't need to discuss RPP, which is a specific procedure with its own quirks. For example, when RPP is not in effect one would call an immediate technical foul on a player for not being in the semi circle. RPP changes the rules.
You should ask:
Can a FT who refuses to accept the ball from the administering official later pick it up without violating after the official places it on the floor at the FT line? The answer is yes, and that's a better parallel to what we have here.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Whether the FT can enter the semi circle and get a ball put there WHEN HE WASN'T IN THERE isn't relevant to this situation.

Of course it's relevant. Here's what you said, quoted from page 1 of this thread:

The ball is no longer at his disposal because it is somewhere where he cannot go to get it.

Dan_ref and I just gave you an example that shows that statement to be absolutely false. Whether the resuming procedure is in effect or not, the player cannot go to get the ball and yet the ball is at his disposal.

Whatever other point you'd like to make, I'm willing to listen; but the play I described for you is exactly on point and shows your original statement to be false.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Since RPP isn't in effect in this case, it doesn't matter. Whether the FT can enter the semi circle and get a ball put there WHEN HE WASN'T IN THERE isn't relevant to this situation.

Well of course it's relevant, unless you want to retract this statement:

The ball is no longer at his disposal because it is somewhere where he cannot go to get it. In other words it is not like a throw-in placed on the floor. In that case the ball is somewhere where a player from the team may legally get it. In this case the player clearly cannot go get the ball.

In both plays the FTer cannot legally get the ball.

[Scrapper1]

This time I beat Dan_ref!

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This time I beat Dan_ref!

Damn. I knew I shouldn't have wasted time underlining that passage!

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

This time I beat Dan_ref!

So I've heard......

[Adam]

FCOL, just blow it dead and give the ball back to the shooter. If he still wants a TO, he'll ask again.

[Nevadaref]

I still don't agree that your RRP example is relevant or that it makes my earlier statement false.

Dan asked me, "By what rule is the ball no longer at the disposal in this sitch?"

The logic of my response was that the ball is no longer at the disposal of the FT shooter because he had the ball, but now it is gone. That seems pretty simple.

In your RPP example, the FT shooter was never allowed to have the ball in first place, thus it is impossible to argue that the ball, while still live, will at sometime no longer be at his disposal.

It's just not the same.

Furthermore, neither you nor Dan has responded to my point that the RPP creates special circumstances during a game of basketball during which some of the normal rules are suspended. The example I gave dealt with technical fouls. Therefore, using a RPP situation to argue by analogy is not appropriate. What happens under RPP is quite different.