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?

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.:D

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

You think that I was angry? :confused: 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 :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:
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.

True dat.

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.

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.

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?


Why don't you just STFU you ignorant irrelevant old fool.

(btw I agree with you, which doesn't make me ignorant or irrelevant or old)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

C'mon, Sam, I think this is unnecessary. As SmokeEater said, maybe he shouldn't have yelled at the ref during the game, but his question here was certainly not offensive enough to merit this kind of hostility. No need to be so inflammatory.

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.

1) :confused: I generally do. Maybe we need a poll.......

2) You hurt my feelings. So......... I'm gonna kick Chuck the next time I see him.

What do you mean <b>"us"</b>? :confused:

You're confusing a "few" with "us".

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

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

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??

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.

Someone has to second the motion first.

I second.

Let's vote.

Make sure it's a low kick

A low kick will still hit him in the head.

I think it goes very well with post #3 attributed to Todd Pen. Do you disagree? (I am not asking you to justify, which you may, but only your opinion.)

yeahbut you want to hit him on the temple or the jawbone.

Aim extra low or you'll just clip the top of his head. Imagine kicking a golf ball...

Nah, golf balls aren't pointed.

Good point.

Here's an idea...turn a golf tee upside down on the ground and practice kicking that.

Good point also.

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.

He mentioned something about running out of granola bars. He'll be back later.

Ain't no way he's having a cigarette after either. Probably a diet coke.....or maybe a spot of tea:rolleyes:

Maybe we should get back on topic.

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

Am I in that lump? I didn't see a smiley! :eek:

So ONE official (our devoted Nevadaref) gets all over the OP'ers case and you feel the need to tell us all what your impressions of all of us are??? Great...thanks for the input...next time address your diatribe at the person who needs it, not all of us on this board...and btw, adding a "sorry" at the end of a post like this just doesn't cut it.

Oh great, here we go with the short jokes again. One of these days I'm gonna have Chuck stand on my shoulders so we can punch you right in the gut!! And JR, too! :D :D :D

Do you scream "3 seconds ref" at the top of your lungs when a try is in the air?

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

Nope, thats what the parents are for.

If she is fouled , yes. :)

No, I stand up and spin my arms.

Did I pass? :D

I'll bet you a twinkie(used) that you still won't be able to reach.

66.6
2 out of 3 ain't bad at all
:D

"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? :confused:

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

Honestly, I do not give a damn what they think about me as an official or other officials. I am an individual and I have a bad feeling of coaches and players because of their behavior too. Also it is not my job to be liked and it is not my job to like the participants. I have a job to do and who I like does not take away from that job.

If you ask me, your approach to all of this is flawed.

Peace

I will let you on a little secret. If a player dribbles into 3 defenders, they better have punched her if you expect a foul. ;)

So when an official Ts you up for that action, what are you going to say then?

Peace

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

It's the name of one of my plays.

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 need to read Rule 10-4-1e.

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

:D :D :D :D
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:

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.

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.

I disagree. Could you provide some examples of when someone is treated poorly for merely not understanding the rules?
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. I think you've completely misread what goes on here.
"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?
How's the air up on that high horse of yours?

: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

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.)

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.

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.

Just for the record, I didn't ask you. I was offering up an opinion. And also for the record, I lump you into the group of posters here who strike me as jaded and cranky, as evidenced by your response above.

Put me down in that category too, please.:D

OK, everybody in favor of sending Nevada to OldSchool Land for starting this sh!t, raise your hand. Or any other appendage as desired. Rocky & Chuck....you guys stand on a chair so we can see you.

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

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.

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.

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….

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! :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.

Actually there are three: WETHER: a gelded male sheep

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.







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...

Well, according to that logic.......

Old School....nov 2006....total posts 924

cloverdale.....jan 2004.....total posts 107

who contributes more to this forum?

who has more rules knowledge?

You're right in all cases. And in general, once someone has picked up the ball, I won't grant a TO.

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.

I'm not saying whether that's what Nevada's trying to do; I didn't read it that close. (Sorry, Nevada.)
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.

Right. I agree. And the ref should not have granted the TO once the opponent had taken the ball oob even if the count wasn't begun, which it should have been, even if not visual.

The ball is "available" if B1 is in position to make a throw-in or reasonably could be expected to be in such a position (and, yes, that requires some judgment).

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.

Yeah!!

Yeah!!

What he said!

As usual, Bob is the voice of reason. (something we could stand to hear more of here sometimes) This is a good explanation, I think, and also serves as a good example of a rule which may sometimes be difficult to translate literally from the printed page to the court.

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.

Thanks Bob! I would request, however, that you please chime in earlier so we don’t have to go through 6 pages of accusation and insults to get a reasonable interpretation.

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

Mark, I usually understand your posts, whether I want to or not. But seriously, I don't get what the point to this is, or why you put it in here. Care to explain?:confused:

And I thought I was missing something....

It's simple - the delineation and separation of the systems and procedures functions in the transferred components and their proper relocation require further detailed analysis. Also the appropriate locations and certain other specified functions which are currently located in the systems and methods area require further evaluation. These remaining subsidiary issues are under active consideration by the task force and further decisions in these areas will be announced with the issuance of subsequent re-organization memorandum. The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power. It will be up to each partnership to agree internally how it can best tackle the difficulties which would be thrown up by a lack of co terminusity. The goal should be for every partner to configure its output in such a way as to maximize effectiveness without promising the individual agencies wider strategic goals.

Does that clear it up?

So what you're saying is we need a new methodology for the extraction of a high-order, linear time invariant model which allows the periodicity of systems response to be accurately captured providing the needed level of dynamic fidelity and to permit an analysis and optimization of the AFCS and HHC algorithms.

Thanks for stating the obvious, Dan.

What are you suggesting?

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.

Well duh, sure, but not when you consider the recent studies related to the interaction of isolated bacterial flagellum filaments (BFF) and intact flagella from E. coli MS 1350 and B. brevis G.-B.p+ with rabbit skeletal myosin where BFF were shown to coprecipitate with myosin (but not with isolated myosin rod!!) at low ionic strength, that is, under conditions of myosin aggregation.

Skip the twinkies.

Can we throw them at the squirrels? I heard they like that kind of thing.

I'm impressed. Corporate/ government mumbo-jumbo with out once using the word "paradigm."

Sheez, Mark, it's not like you to be so restrained. Why don't you tell us how you really feel?

And I was not responding to you because you asked me personally. You posted something on this board it is fair game for opinions. If you did not want opinions, then do not post on a public board.

Peace

I do not like green eggs and ham.

He was suggesting that the two of you get married!!!! :eek:

Mark:

:confused:

MTD, Sr.

You must not be feeling well. ;)

HELP!!! I need my meds. Would someone please call Rush Limbaugh and see if he has any spares? Thanks.

Thread winner! Coach P was a close second...

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 :)