time out after made basket Question

[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.

[todd pen]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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:

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


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

You are an idiot.
As far as my spelling, well I guess you have me there, but you fail to mention that I had neither become irreverent or rude until your follow-up post which referred to my knowledge.
I am ever so fortunate that you are not located anywhere near me as I can tell by your attitude in these posts that you must have many issues that are far from being resolved.
Consider therapy for these issues.
Upon further reading of all posts previous to your own, the answers were direct and friendly, whereas your own was disgusting and debasing.
I really feel for anyone who has the unfortunate task of having to be anywhere near you at any given time.
Please do this thread a huge favor and just stay away from it in the future. Clear to me is that what you think of yourself is something that few others appreciate.
In closing, my question was answered effectively by your superior peers, and there will be no further need for you to reply.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by todd pen

You are an idiot.

True dat.

But he is an idiot savant.

Iow don't mind Doofus. He's a legend in his own mind.

Y'all come back.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Gaul is an ancient country of Western Europe.

"Gaulia omnia tres partes divisia est" (all Gaul is divided into three parts) - Julius Erving....er, I mean Caesar. Hey - do you think they're related?

Since most of this thread had nothing to do with the original question, I thought I'd contribute some more nonsense.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

"Gaulia omnia tres partes divisia est" (all Gaul is divided into three parts) - Julius Erving....er, I mean Caesar. Hey - do you think they're related?

Since most of this thread had nothing to do with the original question, I thought I'd contribute some more nonsense.

Well, if we work hard enough we can make this the topic, can't we?

Old joke for you RC's out there...what's God's phone number?

Et cum Spirit two, two two oh

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

Actually there are three: WETHER: a gelded male sheep

[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]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

So the guy was a d!ck. How does:

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.

help promote a mutually respectful relationship between those indignant, disgruntled athletes and the referees? It doesn't. It makes the problem even worse.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Let's be honest, the tone of Nevada's post was meant to confront and demean the OP.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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….

I think it only comes across as judgmental to those who might have felt that their conduct is being judged. Those attitudes and conduct that I talked about are a discredit to all officials in general, but not necessarily to any individual referee. Referees, as a group, are no different than, for instance, law enforcement officers, attorneys and other professionals in positions of responsibility and authority whom the public (or the playing public) public expect to take the high road. These professions suffer from the "bad apple" analogy when the behavior of some within their ranks is less than appropriate.

I recently heard (I don't remember where) a father telling his teenage daughter that it's important to do the right thing; but what's most important is to do so when the right thing is not necessarily the easiest or most comfortable thing to do. As it relates to this conversation, it may be harder to just dismiss less then constructive criticism; but in the long run wouldn't that be better than engaging in a protracted pi$$ing, the end result of which just adds to an already negative opinion that one may have of officials, an opinion and experience he is likely to share, undoubtedly leaving out his own negative conduct. Granted, there may be some personal satisfaction in engaging somebody like Todd Pen, but it certainly doesn't do anything for officials as a group.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Completely understood. But really, what you're saying when all the fluff is boiled away, is that you were offended by what he said. He was a d!ck so you became an even bigger d!ck. Not to mention that you took advantage of what is probably an inferior mind.

My whole point was, and still is, the conduct and behavior of a few negatively reflect upon the group of a whole; whether that conduct is broadcast via an Internet forum or if it is said in a small gym. People see it, hear it and repeat it.

Should we, as officials care? I think so, but other will undoubtedly have a different opinion.

[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?