Improper Whistle

[kbilla]

you are correct, all i was trying to convey is that the throw in never ended..if the throw in never ended how could you be inbounding from a spot different from the original inbounds spot...can you think of a situation where you would?

[psujaye]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

5.8.3 SITUATION E: The official erroneously grants Team B a time-out in a situation when Team B cannot have one. What happens now? RULING: Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was granted. The time-out once granted cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B. All privileges and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams.



PS The game is resumed with a Team A throw-in from where A1 threw the ball as that is the POI.

Understanding what the rule/casebook states, if team B is granted this timeout and they sub in a crucial part of the game, i think you (as a referee) are creating trouble. I would think (again, knowing what the rule is) you're better off blowing your whistle again, acknowledging to both coaches that you have an IW and you made a mistake, and get the ball back in play with Throw-in by team A as soon as possible.
then again i don't believe in picking/chosing which rules to enforce. So I don't know.
The best way to avoid this is not to have an IW

[Adam]

Originally Posted by psujaye

Understanding what the rule/casebook states, if team B is granted this timeout and they sub in a crucial part of the game, i think you (as a referee) are creating trouble. I would think (again, knowing what the rule is) you're better off blowing your whistle again, acknowledging to both coaches that you have an IW and you made a mistake, and get the ball back in play with Throw-in by team A as soon as possible.
then again i don't believe in picking/chosing which rules to enforce. So I don't know.
The best way to avoid this is not to have an IW

The NFHS specifically doesn't want it your way, though. By rule, you have to grant the TO, allow any subs, and proceed accordingly.

NCAA, they do it your way, IMS.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by kbilla

you are correct, all i was trying to convey is that the throw in never ended..if the throw in never ended how could you be inbounding from a spot different from the original inbounds spot...can you think of a situation where you would?

A common foul before the bonus.

A non-throw-in violation (kicking, hitting with a fist, BI, throwing the ball through the basket).

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, the ball location is the spot it last touched the court. But the POI doesn't say "resume at the ball location" for this type of POI.

It also doesn't say "a free throw or throw-in at the original throw-in spot when the interruption occurred during this activity". It just says a throw-in. And where do we put the ball back in play normally? Either at the ball's location (as directed in the POI definition) or at the spot closest to an infraction. Since there is no infraction here, it seems to make sense to put the ball in play at the location of the ball when it became dead.

[Adam]

Since the rules don't specify; I'd say to put the ball back in play at the original throwin spot since it makes the most sense.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Since the rules don't specify; I'd say to put the ball back in play at the original throwin spot since it makes the most sense.

I'm not sure it makes more sense, to be honest. I think, by rule, a reasonable case can be made for putting it in play at the spot closest to where it became dead. But I agree that the common sense thing to do is a "do-over", even though we know that there's not really any such thing.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Since the rules don't specify; I'd say to put the ball back in play at the original throwin spot since it makes the most sense.

Which was my point....and which seems to be the same point as Bob J's.

It ain't covered definitively. Everybody is free to follow their own "sense" as to which is the appropriate throw-in spot. My own personal sense says that it's the same throw-in and I'm just gonna duplicate it. Iow, it's going back to the original spot. That doesn't mean that Skippy's different "sense" is wrong though.

This is another play that needs a FED interpretation.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by nukewhistle

A1's legal throw-in is bounding untouched in team A's backcourt. An official improperly whistles a timeout for team B. Is that timeout request granted?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

5.8.3 SITUATION E: The official erroneously grants Team B a time-out in a situation when Team B cannot have one. What happens now? RULING: Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was granted. The time-out once granted cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B. All privileges and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams.



PS The game is resumed with a Team A throw-in from where A1 threw the ball as that is the POI.

The original post says that the official sounded the whistle for a timeout request. Does that imply that the timeout has been granted, or does the official have to notify the table before a timeout has actually been granted?

Could this be handled as an inadvertent whistle if the table hasn't been notified?

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

The original post says that the official sounded the whistle for a timeout request. Does that imply that the timeout has been granted, or does the official have to notify the table before a timeout has actually been granted?

Could this be handled as an inadvertent whistle if the table hasn't been notified?

I would say the time-out request has already be recognized by the official.

No. Why would you go IAW

[Adam]

Originally Posted by truerookie

I would say the time-out request has already be recognized by the official.

No. Why would you go IAW

It is an IW. But you still grant the TO because the ball is now dead and you have no rules basis for refusing.

[SamIAm]

Originally Posted by Jimgolf

The original post says that the official sounded the whistle for a timeout request. Does that imply that the timeout has been granted, or does the official have to notify the table before a timeout has actually been granted?

Could this be handled as an inadvertent whistle if the table hasn't been notified?

I think you can go with an inadvertent whistle in this sitch, but once you notify the table, too late (imo).

NCAA iaw says the whistle was blown as an oversight, with no call to make.

edited - as snaqwells writes, either way you grant the timeout.

[truerookie]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It is an IW. But you still grant the TO because the ball is now dead and you have no rules basis for refusing.

I understand it was an IW. Correct you must still grant the TO request. I was asking why should you try to treat as an IW and not grant the TO. Maybe, I did not make that clear enough in my response.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by truerookie

I understand it was an IW. Correct you must still grant the TO request. I was asking why should you try to treat as an IW and not grant the TO. Maybe, I did not make that clear enough in my response.

What difference does it make? No matter what you call it, you're still going to do the same thing.

[Jimgolf]

Originally Posted by truerookie

I understand it was an IW. Correct you must still grant the TO request. I was asking why should you try to treat as an IW and not grant the TO. Maybe, I did not make that clear enough in my response.

I guess what I was trying to point out is that in the original situation, there is no mention of a signal to the table for a timeout, just a whistle being blown. If someone requests a timeout, and a whistle is blown, does that mean the timeout has been granted?

I'm thinking of a common situation (at least in youth basketball) where there's a scramble for a ball and in the midst of a tie up, someone asks for a timeout. Usually you'll see a held ball signal with no timeout granted, or a timeout granted with no held ball called, depending on the officials' judgment. Based on the quoted logic, should the timeout request be granted despite a held ball call?