If I have a 7 count on Team A, who is trying to get past mid court, they call time out, how many seconds do they have to past mid court after they their time out.
3 or 10

Ricejock; The timeout causes the count to stop at that point. Thus when they resumed play with a throw-in and the ball is in the back court. You would start the 10 second from the beginning. In this case, Team A had called the timeout to most likely prevent a violation. The timeout should be granted as long as A has control of the ball when the timeout is requested.
PS. No RELATION here..............

Until you get to the NBA (where you'll have an 8 second count) or women's NCAA (where there's no count), just remember that the 10 second count is "reset" every time team A makes a throw-in. As to why - there is no team control during a throw-in.

IMO this is another rule that needs to be changed!
A team can play great defense for 9 seconds, only to see it
all wasted because the offense simply calls a timeout!

I disagee. If a team wants to trade a timeout for avoidance of a turnover, they should be able to do so. I would feel differently if there were an unlimited number of timeouts, however.

Timeouts are precious, especially in a close game.

If you want to change a timing rule, get rid of the 5 second closely guarded call. Why should a team be penalized (and the other team rewarded) because a player happened to be standing within 6 feet of another player for 5 seconds?

I disagree also. Time outs in a close battle really help, especially to a losing team. Basketball is about scoring and to score, you need possessions. Down the stretch, that possession may be critical and thus that time out will be huge. when I play, I consider it a small victory if we can cause a team to waste a TO. I'm sure most coaches do.

Larks - Veteran In Training

Ok, so you're behind by 1. Heavy pressure in the backcourt.
Ball is inbounded with Oh, say 14 seconds left.
with 5 on the clock, offense calls timeout.
Small victory? I think not! JMO;)

By the way Mark,
I agree with you on the closely guarded call.
And (even though I'm sure Mr.D will assail me for this):D
I don't start my count with a player standing six feet away unless he makes an effort to play defense.

Sure it is...now they have to re-inbound the ball and run a successful play in 5 secs. My great D cost them 2/3rds of their remaining time to score. There a lot of pressure on a player to get thru the defense and make a game winning shot with 5 seconds left.

DEFENSE is behind by 1.
And let's just pretend that the coach is stupid and his kids
haven't fouled to stop the clock.;)
Now instead of having 5 seconds for YOU to run a successful
play, now you have to hope for a steal of the inbounds pass
and then quick foul.

Well, If I'm down 1 with 14 secs on the clock, I foul right away. If I dont, I cant be upset about my predicament because I contributed to it myself. Especially if it would be 1 and 1.

Nope...in all cases, I am happy with this rule. But I see you working DrakeM

Let's not go back to the 80% rule!

There are times where I would rather have a team burn a timeout than gain posession. For example, first quarter, my team just scored, and the game is still close. We pressure the inbounder to a count of four, and he then calls a timeout.

Yes, he'll get the ball back, but that's one less timeout he can use to stop the clock at the end of the game - meaning he'll have to foul my team in order to stop the clock.

This is one of those things that can go either way, and should just be left alone.

On a related note, Drake's change really would only work in NBA (where it is the rule) and NCAA - because of the shot clock. What is a ref supposed to do - say a team has 1.2 seconds to cross over? What if an official forgets where the count was? I just don't see this working on the high school level.

Mark,
Why not change to the FIBA rule? The way we call it, the defense must be within arms reach of the player. Also, I have always been taught that if a player is being defended one on one and the offense has not dribbled yet - then you shouldn't call 5 seconds (unless the offense is "pinned" in the corner).

The way I have had it explained to me is that 5 seconds should only be called if the offense does not have the opportunity to pass, dribble or shot (a legitimate pass or shot - prayer's don't count).
What are your thoughts on this - would it be an improvement from current NFHS rules?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oz Referee

Quote:

Why not change to the FIBA rule? The way we call it, the defense must be within arms reach of the player. Also, I have always been taught that if a player is being defended one on one and the offense has not dribbled yet - then you shouldn't call 5 seconds (unless the offense is "pinned" in the corner). The way I have had it explained to me is that 5 seconds should only be called if the offense does not have the opportunity to pass, dribble or shot (a legitimate pass or shot - prayer's don't count). What are your thoughts on this - would it be an improvement from current NFHS rules?

My own opinion is that I like the closely guarded rule the way it is, for the most part. The only thing I would quibble with is whether 6 feet is really "closely" guarding somebody. In that sense, maybe I like the FIBA interpretation. But for the most part, the way Duane has explained it, the FIBA rule just seems like a mish-mash of situations. Don't count until after a dribble has started -- unless the offense is pinned in a corner. Don't count unless the defense has already taken away the offensive player's ability to pass, shoot, or drible.

The Fed rule is actually much much better. No matter what you're doing (in the frontcourt), you've got 5 seconds to do something else. If you're holding, you have 5 seconds to dribble, pass, or shoot. If you're dribbling, you have 5 seconds to pass, shoot, or move away from the defense.

What's really so hard about it? I like the rule, I like the way it rewards good defense and penalizes lazy or stupid offense. Without it, you'd get one kid who could dribble around for 30 seconds until he found a shot he liked. Boring. I really don't understand the rationale behind doing away with it.

Just my opinion.

Chuck

Look at the theory behind the shot clock and the 5 second count. There's two reasons behind the shot clock; to encourage scoring (which is a basic principle of the game) and to reward good defense if the clock runs out. I don't believe the 5 second count really does either to anywhere the same degree. After all, the 5 second count can terminate if a player passes to a teammate further away from the basket and, without a shot clock, a team can still "hold" the ball until the end of the quarter without taking a shot. Besides, it seems incredibly inequitable to me to reward a team because one of its players happens to be standing within 6 feet of a ball handler for 5 seconds.

My suggestion is to go to a 24 second shot clock and eliminate the backcourt and closely guarded counts, totally. The game will speed up somewhat, there will be more shooting which is the basic reason for keeping score, and you still will reward team defense if they play well for a reasonable amount of time.

One thing I haven't thought through is whether eliminating the 10 second backcourt counts would have an effect on the amount of full court presses used during a game. You still will reduce the time an offense has to set up for a good shot, but the reward is not so immediate.