i understand what you guys are saying about the resuming play procedure. federation is the only basketball institute that observes this rule(except fiba, i dont know). i might even use it early in the game or early in the 4th qtr. however i would avoid it at game ending/winning situations. my opinon is that the rule is archaic and will eventually be deleted from the book. i would not want to be the reason a team won or lost a game even though it is a technicality. i consider this play similar to making a bad call at the end and the game won on undeserving freethrows. forgive me for coming off as an *** earlier.

I know sometimes when you do things like this, the coaches and even ADs will get totally upset and even go so far as writing the State about it (I personally have not had this happen to me). What is great, is that the State will normally ask for your take on the situation and usually they will tell the coach and AD to read the rule book and make a rules meeting occassionaly.
This kind of situcation happens a lot in Jr. High games, where coaches are trying to getthere players to remember how to play the game right. It can be frustrating for them, almost like adding insult to injury, but they need to be expected to follow the rules like the players do. I will remember what you guys have said about how to do the resumption of play procedure. Thanks!
Matt

In general, I am willing to bend to a certain extent, but the situation you describe here, Mark, is a pet peeve for me, too. Especially since it is usually the coach of the team that is way ahead, and he is just workin' the system. In fact, I was spoken to by an evaluator for letting a sub in after a time out. My partner had actually "beckoned" but I was the Referee and my evaluator thought I should have signalled the sub back to the table and not let my partner make this decision. The evaluator's point was that the rules about subs in rlation to time-outs are quite clear and there was plenty of opportunity for the subs to come in. Why now? Clearly a control and manipulation issue.

ARCHAIC!!! You have got to be kidding!

There has to be some structure in place to get make the ball live and to put the ball back into play. If you remove the resuming play procedure from the rules book, then the only recourse is to charge a technical foul for delay of game to the team who is not ready to play immediately after the second horn. It will not matter whether the offending team is the team making the throw-in or the defensive team. Which rule would you like to see in place: the resuming play procedure or a delay of game technical foul.

If you drop the resuming play procedure from the rules book the coaches will delay and delay and delay and there are officials will never call the technical foul because they do not have the intestinal fortitude to take the bull by the tail and face the situation.

Mark, crew is new. We're still working on him, so give us a little time. ;)

why have the nba and nc2a eliminated this procedure from the rule books? any ideas!

Assuming that you are referring to the Resuming Play Procedure for putting the ball into play after timeouts, the NCAA has not eliminated it from its rules. The NFHS and the NCAA use the same procedures to resume play after a timeout. The NBA/WNBA did not have to eliminate the rule because it never had the rule.

my bad you are correct nc2a does have the rule. though i would avoid it.

My two cents
 

I'm not a big fan of "surprising" everyone with obscure rules which result in a turnover or even worse...an easy score for the offense. However, the rule is there and can be used. So if you're having a problem with a team getting out of the time out, talk to the coach and explain the consequences (opposing coach gets the same courtesy) for the next offense. Should he decide to push the envelope (which is unlikely) then he gives you no choice but to use resumption of play and there is no "surprise".

Crew, I agree with your philosophy late in the game. I too would have a difficult time applying this rule. You want to do everything you can to be invisible and if you hand the ball to the offense for an easy score late in a close game...you're going to take some heat from many different sources. Find another way!

Here's an interesting way to look at it. We already know the losing team wants to cause you bodily harm, but what about the winning team? Do you think they could take any satisfaction in winning the game without opposition. What a shameful way to win a game!

Re: My two cents
 

What's shameful about winning by following the rules? What's the shame in scoring an easy basket, because the defense is choosing not to play? There is not any force or false authority by the ref here. It is very simply and strictly the defender's choice. How is it fair to the team that is following the rules to have to wait and wait because the ref is trying to be invisible instead of doing his/her job?

This whole debate baffles me... Why bother with having timed time-outs if we're not going to enforce them? Why not just call a time out and then talk until everyone is ready to go? If one team is taking advantage (the team that is staying in time out too long), is that advantage legal? NO!! Then why ignore it or justify it? Why not penalize it?

jeffref,
your 2 cents has been worth more than everyone elses dollar on this post. you understand.

We do not have the luxury of deciding which rules we are going to enforce and which rules we are not going to enforce. I grant you that the resuming play procedure has to be enforced from the start of the game. If you have been doing your job then you should have no problem enforcing at the end of the game. If it results in a team scoring a "cheap" basket because it has played by the rules and its opponent has not, so be it. If an official does not want to enforce this rule at the end of the game after enforcing all game long then maybe the official should find a different line of work.