Improper Whistle
 

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?

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.

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

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?

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...

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)

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."

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."

What difference does that make?:confused:

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

It was last in contact with a </b>player</b> 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?:eek:

All I'm saying is that once the ball touches the court, it doesn't matter where it was last touched by a person. If it touches the court, then that's the ball's location. "A ball which is in flight retains the same location as when it was last in contact with a player or the court."

Once it bounces, it has been in contact with the court. That means its location is the same location as when it was last in contact with the court. And that means that its location is NOT the last throw-in spot.

the throw in never ended though! how can you have a different spot if the throw in never ended?

think about a long pass from one end line that never touches anyone, but bounces along the floor and then out of bounds at the opposite end line. would you put it in play from the opposite end line or bring it back to the original throw-in spot?

That's a throw-in violation, and the throw-in spot is the spot of the original throw-in. Has nothing to do with this play, however.

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.

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?

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.

A common foul before the bonus.

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

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.

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. :)

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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?

I understood what you meant, sorry. My point was that it doesn't matter what you call it. By rule, it's an IW. By rule, you still grant the TO. I've seen guys do exactly what is mentioned in the scrum; accidentally hit the whistle for a TO, realize there is no control, and go with a jump ball and not give the TO.

I've never had this particular IW, but I've had others; just like I used to start raising my hand for a call and had to pull it back down.

Normally, if a coach is screaming for a TO in a loose ball scrum; I'll signal the held ball and turn to him to ask if he still wants it.

Most of the time they say no (TO request) especially if the arrow favors them. :cool: