time out after made basket Question

[todd pen]

What criteria should be used by a referee in determining wether or not to give a time out after a made basket? Team A shoots and makes a basket, Team B recovers the ball and is attempting to throw the ball in to start a break. Should the referee give the time out to the team A?

[CLH]

Originally Posted by todd pen

What criteria should be used by a referee in determining wether or not to give a time out after a made basket? Team A shoots and makes a basket, Team B recovers the ball and is attempting to throw the ball in to start a break. Should the referee give the time out to the team A?

If the ball is at the disposal of Team B, then NO, do not grant the timeout. The one thing you have to get yourself out of trouble if you do blow the whistle, is telling the now irate Team B coach, that when the request was made, the ball was not yet at the disposal and you just couldn't crack ur whistle quick enough. Then get the hell away from him.

CLH

[todd pen]

Originally Posted by CLH

If the ball is at the disposal of Team B, then NO, do not grant the timeout. The one thing you have to get yourself out of trouble if you do blow the whistle, is telling the now irate Team B coach, that when the request was made, the ball was not yet at the disposal and you just couldn't crack ur whistle quick enough. Then get the hell away from him.

CLH

Exactly what I thought! And yes I am that irate coach/player. Just mens league, but this ref calls the timeout and stops our fast break. Then has the gaul to say that he can call the timeout at any time before the ball enters play again.
Always nice to be vindicated. Thanks

[CLH]

AHHHHH CRAP!!!!!!! I gave a coach some fuel to his argument. Noone will ever wanna work with me again! Very sneaky coach, well played sir....well played.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by todd pen

Exactly what I thought! And yes I am that irate coach/player. Just mens league, but this ref calls the timeout and stops our fast break. Then has the gaul to say that he can call the timeout at any time before the ball enters play again.
Always nice to be vindicated. Thanks

You'd better check with your ref about what rules they're using. If they say they're using NFHS or NCAA rules, then you're right about the play, but still wrong to argue with the ref. But it's still possible that they're using some other set of rules. The sets we discuss here the most are NFHS and NCAA.

Why are these officials treating todd so harsh? (see below)

Originally Posted by todd pen

Exactly what I thought! And yes I am that irate coach/player. Just mens league, but this ref calls the timeout and stops our fast break. Then has the gaul to say that he can call the timeout at any time before the ball enters play again.
Always nice to be vindicated. Thanks

Well, first of all todd has the gaul -errrr- gall to enter an officials forum with a mere wreck league card in an attempt to point out an officials mistake. Secondly, when he received the answer he thought he wanted to hear, he revealed who he truly was, what "level" he played at & thus the gloating began.

I thank Nevada for the rule breakdown & putting this wreck league superstar in his place!

As a two sport official, I have been reduced to working wreck ball since my season ended in February (thank GOD football starts this weekend). I deal with todd pens every other night. They KNOW it all but can't seem to line up for FTs correctly, OR think that stepping ON the endline (not breaking the plane) for a throw-in results in a violation. And then there are those who "used to ref" or "have a copy of rulebook but it's at home".

Todd got what he asked for... Nevada just put the ruling out there for others to learn instead of just offering his opinion on the play.

How can one ask for a rule clarification & get upset when it's laid out for him??

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by todd pen

What criteria should be used by a referee in determining wether or not to give a time out after a made basket? Team A shoots and makes a basket, Team B recovers the ball and is attempting to throw the ball in to start a break. Should the referee give the time out to the team A?

This issue was addressed with great precision last season by the NFHS.

2006-07 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 9: With less than one minute to play in the fourth quarter, Team A scores a field goal to tie the game. B1, standing under the basket after the score, secures the ball and begins heading to the end line for the ensuing throw-in. A1 requests and is granted a time-out. RULING: Legal procedure. Team A may request and be granted a time-out until the ensuing throw-in begins. The throw-in does not begin until B1 has the ball at his/her disposal and the official has begun the five-second count.

[todd pen]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

This issue was addressed with great precision last season by the NFHS.

2006-07 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations

SITUATION 9: With less than one minute to play in the fourth quarter, Team A scores a field goal to tie the game. B1, standing under the basket after the score, secures the ball and begins heading to the end line for the ensuing throw-in. A1 requests and is granted a time-out. RULING: Legal procedure. Team A may request and be granted a time-out until the ensuing throw-in begins. The throw-in does not begin until B1 has the ball at his/her disposal and the official has begun the five-second count.

Ok thats great! So again I was correct and the ref was not as our team had secured the ball and was attempting to inbound the ball. I had the ball in my hands and was OOB ready to make a throw in.
So I do not understand your post if you are suggesting something other than what was already stated.
BTW we do use NFHS rules.

[Nevadaref]

My post wasn't suggesting anything. It was simply informing you of precisely what the rule is.

Clearly you didn't know, and likely have never looked at a rule book, but as you had the sense to ask, I thought that I would help educate you.

[todd pen]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

My post wasn't suggesting anything. It was simply informing you of precisely what the rule is.

Clearly you didn't know, and likely have never looked at a rule book, but as you had the sense to ask, I thought that I would help educate you.

Well isnt that just indignant of you to say! Clearly I have read a rule book, and I did know, but at the time did not have my rule book sitting on the bench for easy reference. Also I asked as my rule book is an 05/06, rules change and I wanted to make sure by asking the question to current proffesionals.
I do appreciate the education, but do not appreciate the indignant comment, I have been curtious, maybe you should as well.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by todd pen

Well isnt that just indignant of you to say! Clearly I have read a rule book, and I did know, but at the time did not have my rule book sitting on the bench for easy reference. Also I asked as my rule book is an 05/06, rules change and I wanted to make sure by asking the question to current proffesionals.
I do appreciate the education, but do not appreciate the indignant comment, I have been curtious, maybe you should as well.

You think that I was angry? Perhaps you are in need of a dictionary. If you had written ignorant, your sentence would have at least made sense.

Anyway, you certainly weren't courteous (which you can't even spell ), rather your posts have been haughty and self-conceited. It is obvious that all that you were concerned with was being told that you were right and that the referee in your rec league game was wrong. Well, guess what? I don't care.
I posted merely to inform and state the rule for someone who might come along and read this thread, not to stroke your ego or say who was right and who was not.
Furthermore, you asked what criteria should be used to determine when a time-out should no longer be granted to the scoring team by an official. My post gave the exact two (disposal and the five-second count having begun), which I highlighted in red. Prior to my post only disposal had been mentioned, yet you arrogantly dismissed the extra information contained therein as having already been stated, when really you simply failed to grasp the clearer answering of your original question due to your being overjoyed that a previous poster had written that you were right. You even referred to that as your vindication. The truth is that after hearing that you became uninterested in learning anything more. That is too bad because judging by what you have written in this thread, your education could use some furthering.

For example:

Originally Posted by todd pen

What criteria should be used by a referee in determining wether or not to give a time out after a made basket?

There are two ways to spell that word depending upon the meaning required, yet you picked neither.

Originally Posted by todd pen

Then has the gaul to say ...

Gaul is an ancient country of Western Europe. Gall means brazen boldness or audacity.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

Nevada's response in this thread, beginning with post #8, second sentence is a good example. Todd Pen in post #7 said, " .... I do not understand your post ...". Which in turn led to a personal, demeaning and confrontational response from Nevada. (I apologize to Nevada for calling him out but the post(s) within this thread serves as a good example of what I was referring to.)

I disagree. Nevada's 8th post was, as I pointed out, brief and pointed. However, it was hardly confrontational. A bit presumptuous ("likely have never…."), but it was an assumption made from reading a lot of similar posts from disgruntled athletes who merely wanted to be proved right in their indignation towards the evil referee who screwed them out of layups and free throws.

Originally Posted by jmaellis

Many. Only the second paragraph of my post was I referring specifically to my experiences/observations of this forum. The remainder of my post is my overall observations of officials since I became involved in officiating. So, some comments are things that I have heard, some are what I have read. I don't see a need to mine through old posts to "prove" that these types of things have been said or written. I remember them as quoted or with using similar words with the same meaning/context.

You shouldn't have to mine threads for very long if it happens "many" times. If you're referring again to Nevada's post, it is most definitely not a rhetorical jab aimed at silencing criticism. It was merely an explanation for why he had posted the rule in full.

Originally Posted by jmaellis

IMO this type of attitude is a discredit to all officials and reinforces already negative stereotypes that officials are unapproachable and/or unwilling to acknowledge their own shortcomings.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

How's the air up on that high horse of yours?

Originally Posted by jmaellis

I was sharing general thoughts and my personal observations of some officials; you respond with an insult. If you want an example of the type of conduct that I referred to in my post ... look no further than a mirror.

You were making a judgment on how the attitudes you feel you have observed are "a discredit to all officials." It may not have been intended as such, but it came across as holier-than-thou and judgmental. Hence, "high horse." I'll take criticism any time, as long as it's constructive. Your post may have been cathartic, but….

[jmaellis]

This is where the problem really started:

Originally Posted by todd pen

Ok thats great! So again I was correct and the ref was not as our team had secured the ball and was attempting to inbound the ball. I had the ball in my hands and was OOB ready to make a throw in.
So I do not understand your post if you are suggesting something other than what was already stated.
BTW we do use NFHS rules.

Todd Pen initiated the conflict and chose to spar with a prolific wordsmith. Todd Pen egged on Nevada, and Nevada took the bait .. oh well, Todd Pen got what he deserved; but so did Nevada, his conduct boiled over an already simmering pot.

With that said, I like to offer an observation. I have noticed during the short period of time reading, learning and posting on this forum that certain officials have no tolerance for those that do not know as much as they do, or just don't understand a particular rule/situation. Some consider any disagreement or dissent to their rational a direct attack upon their knowledge; they lash out, sometimes unnecessarily in a demeaning/indignant manner. This is especially true when it involves a non-official.

Additionally, from what I have observed so far, there does seem to be a "circling of the wagons" mentality among some basketball officials. Any challenge to their knowledge or judgment results in a swift condemnation of the "accuser" as ignorant or ill informed (whether it be an inexperienced official or a coach/player/fan). These officials often seem unwilling to acknowledge their own deficiencies or the apparent deficiencies of other officials. Excuses are abundant; "You didn't see what the official saw"; "The official this or the official that"'; or "I wasn't there." Rarely is there any acknowledgment that the official was wrong or might have been wrong and should have done a better job. These officials are completely incapable of accepting any criticism, whether it be of themselves of other officials and have no tolerance for anybody who is not as knowledgeable or informed as they are.

There are those that have many excuses as to why their or another official's misconduct, lack of judgment, lack or rule knowledge, or poor attitude should be tolerated or ignored. "Get over it and play on"; or "Any deficiency on the part of an official is unlikely to effect he end result of a game."; Don't criticize me unless you are willing to fill my shoes." These type of comments are just rhetoric. IMO this type of attitude is a discredit to all officials and reinforces already negative stereotypes that officials are unapproachable and/or unwilling to acknowledge their own shortcomings.

So anyway, this is all, of course, just my .02 that I thought I would share.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

Excuses are abundant; "I wasn't there."

I don't think it's fair to lump this in with the rest of the "excuses". Whenever there is a question that involves a judgment call, it's eminently fair to not be able to comment helpfully without having "been there" to see how something happened.

And no, I'm not attacking you. I'm just trying to point out a legitimate response. FWIW, I thought you had some good comments.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

With that said, I like to offer an observation. I have noticed during the short period of time reading, learning and posting on this forum that certain officials have no tolerance for those that do not know as much as they do, or just don't understand a particular rule/situation. Some consider any disagreement or dissent to their rational a direct attack upon their knowledge; they lash out, sometimes unnecessarily in a demeaning/indignant manner. This is especially true when it involves a non-official.

I disagree. Could you provide some examples of when someone is treated poorly for merely not understanding the rules?

Originally Posted by jmaellis

Additionally, from what I have observed so far, there does seem to be a "circling of the wagons" mentality among some basketball officials. Any challenge to their knowledge or judgment results in a swift condemnation of the "accuser" as ignorant or ill informed (whether it be an inexperienced official or a coach/player/fan). These officials often seem unwilling to acknowledge their own deficiencies or the apparent deficiencies of other officials. Excuses are abundant; "You didn't see what the official saw"; "The official this or the official that"'; or "I wasn't there." Rarely is there any acknowledgment that the official was wrong or might have been wrong and should have done a better job.

I've seen this quite often actually. However, usually, we qualify any statement of "they might have missed it" with "I wasn't there" or "the actual ruling may have been different than you say it was." We aren't going to pile on an official for making a call when we have no idea what was going through his head.

Originally Posted by jmaellis

These officials are completely incapable of accepting any criticism, whether it be of themselves of other officials and have no tolerance for anybody who is not as knowledgeable or informed as they are.

I think you've completely misread what goes on here.

Originally Posted by jmaellis

There are those that have many excuses as to why their or another official's misconduct, lack of judgment, lack or rule knowledge, or poor attitude should be tolerated or ignored. "Get over it and play on"; or "Any deficiency on the part of an official is unlikely to effect he end result of a game."; Don't criticize me unless you are willing to fill my shoes." These type of comments are just rhetoric.

"Get over it and play on" is generally a response to someone's question, "How should I approach the ref when...." It's a practical response. "Any deficiency...." is also a practical response when the players or coaches or fans here complain about how their ref cost the game. It's a specific response and I've never seen it used to deflect criticism on whether an actual call was correct or not. "Don't criticize me...." I haven't actually seen this one. Got an example?

Originally Posted by jmaellis

IMO this type of attitude is a discredit to all officials and reinforces already negative stereotypes that officials are unapproachable and/or unwilling to acknowledge their own shortcomings.

How's the air up on that high horse of yours?