Confirming that I was correct...

[The New Guy]

Here's the situation:

Semifinals of a pretty prestigious tournament for bragging rights in the city. A1 makes a free throw to go ahead by six points with 27.1 seconds remaining in the second half. B1 rolls the ball towards half court as B2 runs up along with it so the clock doesn't start right away (we've all seen this). I am the old lead transitioning to new trail as the ball goes up the floor waiting to chop the clock in. Just as the ball nears half court and BEFORE B2 touches the ball (he's not even close to bending down for it), the coach for team B is granted a timeout by the new lead official.

Halfway through the timeout, an assistant coach for team B asks where the ball is going to be taken out. I tell him that it will be on the baseline where the throw in originated. He goes nuts and the head coach ends up going nuts. He wanted the ball at half court. I calmly explained to him that since the ball was never touched on the court, it is as if the timeout was called before the throw in ever took place. He can't have the ball advanced to half court without the clock running at the expense of his timeout.

He persisted for a minute and went back to his huddle. He wasn't happy about it, but he didn't make a fuss about it any more than the initial shock. His team ended up losing.

My questions for this group are:

A) should the timeout have even been granted?
B) since the timeout was granted, was I correct in putting the throw-in back on the baseline?
C) after the timeout, can B1 run the baseline on the throw-in (I told him he could, but there was no full-court press)?
D) has anyone had this before? I obviously never have.

Thanks ...

[Mark Dexter]

Well, (a) is easy - in NFHS rules, if you blow the whistle to grant a TO when one wasn't allowed, you give the timeout (because you now have a dead ball).

Some on here will say go to the spot of the ball when the whistle was blown, some will say go back to the original throw-in spot, others will say go to the AP arrow (whistle blown while no team was in control).

[tjones1]

Well the throw-in would have ended per 4-42-5. So I say the time-out should have been granted and the ball should have been inbounded where it was when the time-out was granted.

But then again, I've been doing baseball for the past few weeks. So I very easily could be wrong and rusty.

Edit: Looks like I'm wrong.... oh well.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by The New Guy

A) should the timeout have even been granted?

No. You cannot have a timeout without player possession. A ball rolling on the ground is not player possession.

Originally Posted by The New Guy

B) since the timeout was granted, was I correct in putting the throw-in back on the baseline?

I guess technically the ball should be at the baseline. The ball was on the floor based on a pass. I would give the ball back to the spot there was last possession. I would have to look at casebook to see what it says for sure, but I think that is the only thing to do.

Originally Posted by The New Guy

C) has anyone had this before? I obviously never have.

I have had an inadvertent whistle in my games before. Not quite the same situation as this but I have had it before.

Why did you not go with an inadvertent whistle and just start play from there? I know the rules say that you must go with a timeout, but it was clear this was not the right time to call for a timeout. Why not just go to your partner and tell give them information and not grant the timeout?

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by The New Guy

My questions for this group are:

A) should the timeout have even been granted? No. There was no inbounds player possession.

B) since the timeout was granted, was I correct in putting the throw-in back on the baseline? Yes. Go back to POI. I think using the arrow opens a can of worms, and 50% of the time, you'll have to T the coach of Team B. Going to closest spot could likely cause a T on coach A.

C) after the timeout, can B1 run the baseline on the throw-in (I told him he could, but there was no full-court press)? Yes, allow B to run the endline.

D) has anyone had this before? I obviously never have. Not that I recall.

Thanks ...

[deecee]

the timeout should not have been granted however once the whistle was blown it can be granted.

i would go back to the baseline with the team able to run endline.

never seen this -- however if this WERE a real game (HS) my pregame inclued official on ball should be the one to call TO's in the event of tieups/balls being juggled etc. off ball official should only grant TO after he sees the coach/player request one and visually confirms PC.

tell the B coach to just roll the ball up again as the clock is already stopped .

[Nevadaref]

Okay here is the very precise ruling on this situation.

A. The time-out request should NOT have been granted. The ball was live, there was no player control, and the ball was not at the disposal of a thrower.
Per 5-8-3

RULE 5, SECTION 8 TIME-OUT, STOPPING PLAY
Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official:

Art. 3 . . . Grants a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when:
a. The ball is in control or at the disposal of a player of his/her team.
b. The ball is dead, unless replacement of a disqualified, or injured player(s), or a player directed to leave the game is pending, and a substitute(s) is available and required.

B. Since the whistle was blown to grant a time-out to a team during a time when they could not have one, it is my opinion that the whistle should be treated as an accidental whistle and you follow the rulings in the casebook.

5.8.3 SITUATION E: The official erroneously grants Team B a time-out in a situation when Team B cannot have one. What happens now? RULING: Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was granted. The time-out once granted cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B. All privileges and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams.

ACCIDENTAL WHISTLE
7.5.4 SITUATION: An official sounds his/her whistle accidentally: (a) while A1 is dribbling and in player control; (b) while Team A is in control and passing among teammates; (c) while A1's unsuccessful try attempt is in flight; or (d) while A's successful try attempt is in flight. RULING: The ball is put in play at the point of interruption. In (a) and (b), Team A is awarded a throw-in at the nearest out-of-bounds spot to where the ball was when the whistle was accidentally sounded. In (c), the ball is put in play by the team entitled to the throw-in using the alternating-possession procedure. In (d), even though, by rule, there is no team control during this dead-ball period, the ball would be given to Team B for a throw-in anywhere along the end line. Team B would have clearly received the ball had the official not accidentally sounded his/her whistle. (7-4-4; 4-12-3,6; 4-36)

According to 4-36-2b the POI is the throw-in which was interrupted. Therefore, the throw-in should be readministered from the same location, in this case along the end line.

RULE 4, SECTION 36 POINT OF INTERRUPTION
ART. 1 . . . Method of resuming play due to an official's accidental whistle, an interrupted game, as in 5-4-3, a correctable error, as in 2-10-6, a double personal, double technical or simultaneous foul, as in 4-19-8 and 4-19-10.
ART. 2 …Play shall be resumed by one of the following:
a. A throw-in to the team that was in control at a spot nearest to where the ball was located when the stoppage occurred.
b. A free throw or a throw-in when the stoppage occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such.
c. An alternating-possession throw-in when the point of interruption is such that neither team is in control and no goal, infraction, nor end of quarter/extra period is involved.


C. Yes, the team retains the right to run the end line when a time-out is granted during the throw-in.

7.5.7 SITUATION C: Team B has scored a field goal and A1 has the ball along the end line for a throw-in. Team A is not in the bonus. Prior to the ball being thrown inbounds by A1: (a) B1 fouls A2 inbounds near A1; (b) B1 fouls A2 at the division line; (c) B1 fouls A2 beyond the division line; or (d) A2 requests a time-out. RULING: In (a) and (d), Team A may throw-in from anywhere out of bounds along the end line following the foul reporting and the time-out. In (b) and (c), the ball will be given to Team A for a throw-in from the spot out of bounds nearest to where the foul occurred.

D. I have dealt with accidental whistles in games, but never in the exact situation you have described.


Your partner should have to buy the first beer following the game for his screw-up.

[deecee]

for everything nevada said -- it was stated earlier in about 5-10 words


yes -- no -- yes -- somewhat -- good job.

this is a case of common sense officiating -- after your partner blows his whistle and calls the TO -- knee him you know where - case closed

[Old School]

Originally Posted by The New Guy

My questions for this group are:

A) should the timeout have even been granted?
B) since the timeout was granted, was I correct in putting the throw-in back on the baseline?
C) after the timeout, can B1 run the baseline on the throw-in (I told him he could, but there was no full-court press)?
D) has anyone had this before? I obviously never have.

Thanks ...

You did the right thing, you applied common sense to the play. I would have asked the coach what did he expect should happen, and then told him to prove it by rule, because that is not the way I understand the rule. Next time, tell your partner to wait until the player touches the ball and then grant the TO. The reason is the clock is not running anyway so the coach loses nothing by you ignoring him until his player touches the ball. Wherever his player touches the ball is where the ball will be. The only problem is, what if A1 runs up and dislodges or steals the ball. Thanks for sharing this unigue situation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Old School

You did the right thing, you applied common sense to the play. I would have asked the coach what did he expect should happen, and then told him to prove it by rule, because that is not the way I understand the rule. Next time, tell your partner to wait until the player touches the ball and then grant the TO. The reason is the clock is not running away so the coach loses nothing by you ignoring him until his player touches the ball. Wherever his player touches the ball is where the ball will be. The only problem is, what if A1 runs up and dislodges or steals the ball. Thanks for sharing this unigue situation.

By rule, you should wait until the player picks the ball up or starts dribbling before granting the TO. Therefore, if A1 runs up and steals the ball before you call this TO, you're fine, because the rules say it's how it should be done.

[Junker]

I agree with all the others that said the TO should not have been granted. Once your partner granted the TO you were in a world of hurt. After that you handled it as best you could, although I really hope the head coach was told to get his assistant in line.

Originally Posted by Old School

I would have asked the coach what did he expect should happen, and then told him to prove it by rule, because that is not the way I understand the rule

That's a dangerous move Old School, especially for a "New Guy". IMHO, quoting rules or telling coaches to prove rules (during the game) could open a huge can of worms...
Most coaches don't know the rules themselves.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

That's a dangerous move Old School, especially for a "New Guy". IMHO, quoting rules or telling coaches to prove rules (during the game) could open a huge can of worms...
Most coaches don't know the rules themselves.

Quoting rules will never hurt you in a game as long as you quote them correctly, however, I will agree, asking the coach to prove it would open up an extended conversation. My thing is to let him put his foot in mouth and then correct him. I would even go as far as to send him a copy of the actual rule the next day, to go along with his mis-interpreted statement to me. However, if you did not ask him for his version of what he felt should happen, you would not have that ammunition to fire back. It all depends on how important the game is.

Oh I hear you loud & clear Old School, just saying that a debate isn't the position a "new" official wants/needs to be in. A vet like yourself knows how to handle that situation but a rook is still learning & becoming comfortable with orchestrating the game.

The only ammo we as officials need are knowledge in our domes & a Fox 40 on our necks.

[Old School]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Oh I hear you loud & clear Old School, just saying that a debate isn't the position a "new" official wants/needs to be in. A vet like yourself knows how to handle that situation but a rook is still learning & becoming comfortable with orchestrating the game.

The only ammo we as officials need are knowledge in our domes & a Fox 40 on our necks.

True.......