Improper Whistle

[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?

[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.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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

If the ball is bouncing on the court, then isn't that where the ball is located and not where it was thrown from?

[FrankHtown]

Wow..interesting situation. The whistle blows while neither team has team control.

If a shot is in the air, and the whistle blows inadvertantly, if the shot is missed, you go to AP, because neither team has control after a try on goal.

Why not go to the arrow here???

Personally, I'd give it back to A, but what's my rule justification?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by FrankHtown

Wow..interesting situation. The whistle blows while neither team has team control.

If a shot is in the air, and the whistle blows inadvertantly, if the shot is missed, you go to AP, because neither team has control after a try on goal.

Why not go to the arrow here???

Personally, I'd give it back to A, but what's my rule justification?

Because 4-36-2b(POI) says to resume with the throw-in if the accidental whistle occurred during this activity.

Note that only 4-36-2a and 4-36-2c indicate that the spot of the throw-in is the ball location (in "a" it's explicit; in "c" you have to follow the links to 6-4-3)

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by FrankHtown

Why not go to the arrow here???

Personally, I'd give it back to A, but what's my rule justification?

4-36-2b: Play is resumed at the point of interruption which is "A free throw or a throw-in when the interruption occurred during this activity or if a team is entitled to such."

[kbilla]

but if it was never touched then the throw in never ended, therefore i would agree you would put it back at the original throw in spot for A...

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by kbilla

but if it was never touched then the throw in never ended, therefore i would agree you would put it back at the original throw in spot for A...

4-4-3: "A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

4-4-3: "A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court"

It was last in contact with a player at the original throw-in spot.

If you've got a throw-in in a team's backcourt( say, their endline) with a second or 2 left in a tied game, are you really going to move the ball 50 feet up the court for another throw-in because you blew an IW?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

If the ball is bouncing on the court, then isn't that where the ball is located and not where it was thrown from?

What difference does that make?

It ain't definitively covered afaik. Rule 4-35-2(b) just says that you resume with the throw-in.

[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.

[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.