time out after made basket Question

[jmaellis]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.)

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

"Don't criticize me...." I haven't actually seen this one. Got an example?

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.

Originally Posted by Sanqwells

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

Originally Posted by JMAELLIS

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

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.

[blindzebra1]

[quote=jmaellis]This is where the problem really started:



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.



NO TOLERANCE?,SWIFT CONDEMNATION?,CIRCLING OF THE WAGONS?!! ACKNOWLEGE THEIR OWN DEFICIENCIES?!!! MANY EXCUSES?!!!

WHY I OUGHTA!!!.......

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jmaellis

This is where the problem really started:

Quote:

True, that is the post which started it, but you have highlighted the wrong sentence. What set me off was the attitude conveyed by his first words. I've put them in blue. As I have previously responded, all that this guy cares about is declaring that he was right and the ref was wrong. He still doesn't understand the rule with any depth, and doesn't seem to care about learning that.

The purpose of this forum is to increase our rules knowledge and thus better ourselves. It is not about proving that someone was right and someone else was wrong. There is no self-improvement there. That is merely pointing out the mistakes of others. (Of course, I do that myself some. However, it is mostly done in good fun, except in the case of Old School.)

To set the record straight, it wasn't wonderful of me to smack the OP, but here is why I did so.
My VERY FIRST POST in this thread was post #6, which consisted of nothing more than simply posting last season's NFHS Interp on this issue. In response to that "Mr. Perfect" displayed his I'm-still-right-and-the-ref-is-still-wrong attitude. He didn't even bother to take into account the extra information provided or that the official may have had a good reason for granting the time-out a bit late such as was pointed out by CLH, the initial responder, when he commented that perhaps the request was properly made, but the official couldn't get play stopped quickly enough or maybe was late recognizing the request and wasn't going to penalize the team for his tardiness. (On the other hand, perhaps this guy had Old School as his referee and he really did just make up his own rule! )

Anyway, I reacted to the attitude coming from "Mr. Perfect", who I still believe doesn't have any serious rules knowledge, by demonstrating to him that he also makes his share of mistakes and shouldn't be focusing on those of others. Thus the irony of his misspelling the word "gall" was particularly sweet.

The belief by the players, coaches, and spectators that it is unacceptable for the officials to be anything less than perfect has become particularly irksome to me. The human element is an integral part of sports. Mistakes will be made by all involved INCLUDING THE OFFICIALS. This needs to be accepted as part of the excitement of sporting contests. Otherwise, we could just plug the stats into a computer and award the trophies based on the print-outs.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The throw-in does not begin until B1 has the ball at his/her disposal and the official has begun the five-second count.

In fact, todd pen was wrong. Although your team might have had the ball, it's unclear from your description whether the official had begun the five-second count.

Notice the conjunction: AND. Both of these conditions in the rule must be met before the throw-in has begun and it's too late to call a TO. Since the official called the TO, I would surmise that he had NOT begun the five-second count, in which case he would be following correct procedure.

Thanks for playing.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by mbyron

In fact, todd pen was wrong.

That's kinda strong. We really don't have enough information from the description he gave to make that definitive statement.

FWIW, I think everyone's kinda piling on Todd Pen. He just asked for a rule clarification from an expert source. Maybe he wants to be a snot with the official that made the call, but I think he was pretty respectful here. Why the nastiness?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

That's kinda strong. We really don't have enough information from the description he gave to make that definitive statement.

FWIW, I think everyone's kinda piling on Todd Pen. He just asked for a rule clarification from an expert source. Maybe he wants to be a snot with the official that made the call, but I think he was pretty respectful here. Why the nastiness?

I agree. Nevada was "wrong" to use "clearly you have never read a book" (or whatever teh exact phrase was, Todd was worng to "gloat" and to over-react to Nevada, the official was wrong in his phrasing (if the report by Todd was accurate), .....

It's the official's judgment as to when the throw-in begins. If the time out request was before then, the official was correct to grant it. It's clear that in Todd's opinion, the request was made after the throw-in began. Officials have made worse mistakes. Shrug.

[SamIAm]

Hey Todd,

What defense were you guys playing before they scored? Oops, I answered my own question, BAD defense since they scored. Who was not guarding the scorer? Could he/she not get legal guarding position?

Please fill us in on what you have said to your mistake prone teammate.

Aditionally,
I have good news for you. While the official probably made a mistake, it seems like his offficiating level may have been right in line with the ability of the players.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by Bad Zebra

Why the nastiness?

Todd criticized a ref, and Nevada reacted stiffly and perhaps a little haughtily, and then Todd overreacted. Todd's initial criticism was not really all that severe considering some of the other stuff we've seen here in the past, so I don't exactly understand Nevada's reaction, except that's just Nevada, but Todd didn't know him before, and kinda mistook the situation, however understandably. That's why.

[Adam]

Juulie, I disagree. Nevada's post was pointed and brief, but it was hardly insulting. Sure, he made an assumption that may or may not have been wrong; but beyond that....

The over-reaction was clearly not Nevada's.

I vote to have Nevada removed, though, as he's corrected my spelling as well.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I vote to have Nevada removed.....

Maybe we should have a poll........

[Jimgolf]

I don't think it's necessary to impugn that someone has never read a rule book just because they're asking a question or are a player or a coach. I have ready many rule books, many times, but I'm senile, so I forget. Or the rules don't make sense. Or the gist of the rule is buried somewhere in the exceptions and the interpretations.

On the other hand, the subtlety of Nevada's initial response appeared to escape the OP, who should have read more carefully Nevada's response before assuming he knew it all. When someone takes the trouble to post an interpretation and mark it up in red to highlight the precise answer, the person who asks the question should pay attention.

[SmokeEater]

Originally Posted by mbyron

In fact, todd pen was wrong. Although your team might have had the ball, it's unclear from your description whether the official had begun the five-second count.

Notice the conjunction: AND. Both of these conditions in the rule must be met before the throw-in has begun and it's too late to call a TO. Since the official called the TO, I would surmise that he had NOT begun the five-second count, in which case he would be following correct procedure.

Thanks for playing.

This in fact was exactly what I was thinking as I read this thread over. I will call a T.O. right up to the start of a 5 second count. I have even delayed a whistle to see if my partner who is right in front of the benches will blow his whistle to relay the T.O. request first. If it doesn't happen then I will call it and this sometimes happens after the ball has been collected for the throw in.

[just another ref]

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.

This interpretation seems to be in conflict with the rule to me. Perhaps someone could explain.

5-8-3: ..........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.

The situation in this interpretation does not match either of these.

[rainmaker]

Originally Posted by just another ref

This interpretation seems to be in conflict with the rule to me. Perhaps someone could explain.

5-8-3: ..........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.

The situation in this interpretation does not match either of these.

In the case play that Nevada quoted, the interp is that the throw-in doesn't start until the ref has started the count. The way it's written, it sounds as though someone has the ball, so the throw-in has started. But in reality, it's very likely that the request, and the scooping up of the ball and the heading for the endline happened nearly simultaneously, and all that just a fraction of a second after the ball fell through the net. So since the ref hasn't started counting yet, the throw-in hasn't started, and the TO request can still be granted. Especially if the total amount of time between the ball falling into the basket and the whistle is less than a second, so that the ref can legitimately say that the requiest happened before the ball became live.

[just another ref]

Quote:
Originally Posted by just another ref
This interpretation seems to be in conflict with the rule to me. Perhaps someone could explain.

5-8-3: ..........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.

The situation in this interpretation does not match either of these.

Originally Posted by rainmaker

In the case play that Nevada quoted, the interp is that the throw-in doesn't start until the ref has started the count. The way it's written, it sounds as though someone has the ball, so the throw-in has started. But in reality, it's very likely that the request, and the scooping up of the ball and the heading for the endline happened nearly simultaneously, and all that just a fraction of a second after the ball fell through the net. So since the ref hasn't started counting yet, the throw-in hasn't started, and the TO request can still be granted. Especially if the total amount of time between the ball falling into the basket and the whistle is less than a second, so that the ref can legitimately say that the requiest happened before the ball became live.

But.....

6-1-2 tells us that the ball becomes live when ".....on a throw-in, it is at the disposal of the thrower."

4-42-3 tells us: The throw-in and the throw-in count begin when the ball is at the disposal of a player of the team entitled to it.

4-4-7 tells us: The ball is at the disposal of a player when it is available to a player after after a goal.

The word available indicates that the count could start even before being touched.....and in the interpretation "B1.....secures the ball and begins heading toward the end line...." In this case the ball is past the point of being available, is it not? This situation insinuates that the count does not start until B1 steps out of bounds with the ball. If this were the case, in a last second situation if team A has no time out, B1 could kill additional time (you tell me how much) by delaying stepping out of bounds.