![]() |
time out after made basket Question
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?
|
Quote:
CLH |
Quote:
Always nice to be vindicated. Thanks |
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. :eek:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
So I do not understand your post if you are suggesting something other than what was already stated. BTW we do use NFHS rules. |
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. |
Quote:
I do appreciate the education, but do not appreciate the indignant comment, I have been curtious, maybe you should as well. |
Quote:
Anyway, you certainly weren't courteous (which you can't even spell :eek: ), 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. :rolleyes: 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: Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
But he is an idiot <i>savant</i>. Iow don't mind Doofus. He's a legend in his own mind.:D Y'all come back. |
Quote:
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. |
Off-topic question..but what is there about internet forums that causes people to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation? People generally don't address each other in this rude, aggressive way in person...sigh. Can't we all just get along?
Quote:
(btw I agree with you, which doesn't make me ignorant or irrelevant or old) |
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
At the risk of pi$$ing off my fellow officials, I am going to go out on a limb here and say this whole thread is a good example of why some players and coaches have bad attitudes toward us and consider us unapproachable.
A guy comes on here and asks a legit question...no one knows his motives. We just know the rules as they pertain to the scenario he painted. He gets his question answered accurately and then he's attacked. Some of you who didn't attack him feel the need to defend the actions of those that did. Why? Is this what happens over time as an official? We get so jaded and cranky that we just assume a player/coaches motives are always suspect? I wonder how some of you function in society on a day to day basis. Do you react to everyone like that or just save it for officiating? |
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. |
Quote:
2) You hurt my feelings. So......... I'm gonna kick Chuck the next time I see him. |
Quote:
You're confusing a "few" with "us". |
Quote:
|
Why are these officials treating todd so harsh? (see below)
Quote:
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?? |
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. |
Quote:
I second. Let's vote. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Aim extra low or you'll just clip the top of his head. Imagine kicking a golf ball... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here's an idea...turn a golf tee upside down on the ground and practice kicking that. |
Quote:
Where is the l'il sh!t today? It's not like him to miss a day when the BoSox won and the Yankees lost. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
What was the question again...? |
Geeze guys come on, Todd asked a legit question and ya'll jump his ***! What does it matter what level he's in, his team still deserves and official who knows the friggin' rules. How do ya'll handle a coach in a game situation who has this question, sounds like most you would call him an idiot then whack him! He asked a legit question and got a legit answer.
Get the friggin' chip off your shoulders and quit thinking every coach is out to get you or something like that, and quit trying to prove how much you know. My impression of some of you guys is that you go out on the floor trying to teach someone a lesson or show how well you've memorized the rulebook. I know the rules too. Start using the intricacies (sp) of the book when coach is being a jerk to you and trying to show you up. Todd asked a simple question with a simple answer and was excited that he was right. Hell it may have been his first time to be right, give him his moment, after all he is just a dumbass coach right? jk, todd, you can ask me a question anytime Sorry I lumped some of you good guys in on this post. CLH |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Do you want/expect a foul called for your player when he dribbles through multiple defenders instead of passing the ball? Do you hollar "travel" every other time down the court? You make the call... are you :D |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Did I pass? :D |
Quote:
|
Quote:
2 out of 3 ain't bad at all :D |
Quote:
Since most of this thread had nothing to do with the original question, I thought I'd contribute some more nonsense. |
Quote:
If you ask me, your approach to all of this is flawed. Peace |
Quote:
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
Old joke for you RC's out there...what's God's phone number? Et cum Spirit two, two two oh |
Quote:
You don't expect me to yell "TRAVEL" 10 times a night, so we use Officials signals for our play calling.... :D |
time out question
You guys are brutal,I`m glad I live in ny, where it`s safe:o
|
Quote:
Which basically means using a gesture that is seen as being disrespectful (mimicking a travel signal or double dribble signal), they can stick you. So what comes out of your mouth is not all officials judge you by. ;) Peace |
Quote:
Lighten up man!!!! :D :D Didn't you see ANY of my big grin:D :D smiley faces???!!! |
This is where the problem really started:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
:D [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!!!.......:D |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hmmmmmmmm............ 214 for and none against. Even Nevada voted for his own demise. He <b>is</b> smarter than I thought. That it! Buh bye, Nevada. Silly monkeys.......:D |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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! :eek: ) 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. |
Quote:
Actually there are three: WETHER: a gelded male sheep |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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. Quote:
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. |
nevadaref a great offical
todd pen....apr 2006...total posts 5
nevadaref...nov 2002...total posts 5285 who contributes more to this forum ? who has more rules knowledge? there is a small group of officals on this forum who really add to this forum day in and day out...and by far the explainations by nevadaref has helped many on this forum to become better officals... |
Quote:
Old School....nov 2006....total posts 924 cloverdale.....jan 2004.....total posts 107 who contributes more to this forum? who has more rules knowledge? |
Quote:
However, in the case cited by Nevada, the casebook specifically says that beginning the count is part of the definition of when the throw-in begins. I think it's a bad case to put in the case book because it doesn't really say how quickly all those actions happened. And I think the case book should say "the ball is available." Period. The ref should have started the count and it doesn't need to be said. In the stalling situation you're talking about, the count should have already begun if the ball is on the floor and no one is picking it up. In that case, it's available. We've argued about these cases before, and there's no clear answer as to exactly when to start the count, but clearly, if they're trying to stall, the count is the remedy. In the OP, the ref clearly goofed. Nevada's trying to justify the ref by saying the count might not have begun yet, so the throw-in hadn't begun, but I don't buy it. |
Quote:
I will, however, agree that it is likely this ref goofed if the explanation he gave the OP is accurately reflected in this thread. From what it looks like, if the count hadn't started, it should have. Regardless, it looks like the ref involved understood the rule even less than the OP; who had a basic understanding at the very least. And how many of us actually start a count when the thrower simply sets his foot down OOB and releases the pass a split second later? It's sort of an implied count, IMO, when it happens that quickly. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The ball isn't "available" just because B1 has the ball -- if they are still heading out of bounds, then they can't yet make a throw in, so the ball is (usually) not available. If B1 is dealying, then the ball could well be avaialble -- they had reasonable time to get the ball out of bounds. Similarly, the ball might be "available" even if B1 hasn't touched the ball -- if the ball is sitting outside the end-line, and B1 is delaying touching the ball, the official might judge that the B1 (or any B player) could reasonably be expected to have retrieved the ball and started the count. |
Quote:
Yeah!! What he said! |
Quote:
Bottom line on this is I think sometimes the timeout is granted when it should not be. Conversely, I cannot recall ever seeing an official fail to grant one in this case when it was correct to do so. |
I think the bottom line is that the official granted a timeout. Whether he was correct to do so doesn't really matter. Once the timeout has been granted, it's a timeout.
|
Quote:
|
Yeah, people might get their feelings hurt or something.
edited to acknowledge that I understand this post is pure smarta$$ and carries no other redeeming value |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Does that clear it up? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
What are you suggesting? |
Quote:
Yes, but only if a wheel or disk mounted to spin rapidly about an axis and also free to rotate about one or both of two axes perpendicular to each other and the axis of spin so that a rotation of one of the two mutually perpendicular axes results from application of torque to the other when the wheel is spinning and so that the entire apparatus offers considerable opposition depending on the angular momentum to any torque that would change the direction of the axis of spin. I thought that was obvious. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I'm impressed. Corporate/ government mumbo-jumbo with out once using the word "paradigm."
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Peace |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Mark: :confused: MTD, Sr. |
Quote:
|
HELP!!! I need my meds. Would someone please call Rush Limbaugh and see if he has any spares? Thanks.
|
Quote:
Some of you need to work on your bedside manner. I don't have a lot of posts, but I do have a special key on my keyboard... http://texref.com/images/ban.gif ...don't make me use it! Can't believe this made seven pages without being closed... we are done now :) |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:27am. |