Unfortunately this isn't a "SHALL" monitor play, it is a "MAY"... 2-13-2 C3. The "SHALL " plays are fighting, foul @ expiration, made basket @ end of regulation. According to the CCA Manual it is up to the "R" to initiate the monitor review while the "U's" are explaining what is going on to both coaches.

If you have a play that you believe is re viewable then the proper procedure is to relay that information to the "R." The "R" will confirm that the play is re viewable then go to the table and initiate the review. The "R" dones the headphones while reviewing the play with the partner(s) (usually the partner who had the in question play while the other is keeping an eye on the players & floor.)

If in the OP the "R" says that he is sure that the whistle was @ the horn or after, and that they are going to ignore the T/O and go OT then the "U's" should state that they should be go to the monitor to check the time. If the "R" still disagrees then the "U's" can say that they disagree and that they are sure that they should go to check for the timing mistake. IMO, if the "R" still disagree (Not that they would) then the "U(s)" have done what they could and have said that they disagree and gave the proper information. If the "R" doesn't take it then that would be on them.

I just can't imagine a "R" disagreeing with his partners if they were to have said, "we should be going to the monitor to check the time." What sounds like happened is that the "R" who made the call said he knew that the whistle was @ the horn so they were going OT & neither one of the partners stepped up and said that they should be going to the monitor to check for a timing error. This, IMO, is probably why they all lost a game.

According to the CCA Manual it is upto the "R" to make the final ruling on a reviewed play. Although there is nothing in the CCA manual that says a "U" can't initiate the monitor review it just wouldn't be recommended if for some unknown reason the "R" doesn't think the play is re viewable. All the partner can do is emphatically state that he/she knows that they should be going to the monitor. If that would have happened I'm sure the "R" would've went. It just doesn't sound like from the read that is what happened.

I don't @ all agree with the fact that they didn't go to the monitor be sure. I had a supervisor tell me once that even if you know you are 100% correct why wouldn't you still use the monitor, if it was available, to concrete the ruling? If you have a play that "may" be looked @, then look @ it to be sure. That is what this crew should've done, imo. If the "U(s)" would've stepped up and made sure that they reviewed the play then we wouldn't be discussing this right now. Someone missed the chance to save the crew.

Edit: After reading the article once more I can see where this could be a "SHALL" review since one of the officials might have, according to the OP, known that the team was out of T/O's. This could be defined as foul @ the expiration of time since the granted T/O would result in a "T." However I do believe they could've went to the monitor no matter what to check and see if there was time on the clock when the T/O was granted.

On the whistle. The ball doesn't become dead until the whistle blows. The request time doesn't mean anything. It's when the T/O is granted, whistle blown. In the OP if they would've went to the monitor and were able to see/hear that the whistle happened with time on the clock then they would have to add time, grant the T/O and penalize with the "T" & continue @ POI.

I do not know about the best of the best always get hired. First of all many guys that work D1 are not that much better than a lot of officials that do not get picked. They either are in the right place at the right time; they have the right people pulling for them to get hired. And sometimes people that attend multiple times, which many people are not willing to do also help.

Look, these are job interviews and the people are hired are based on need and opportunity. Some people are going to get hired and they will not be the best in everyone's eyes just like anyone else hired at any other job.

Peace

OK, time's up. Nobody gave the answer I was looking for. As I read it, this would be a technical foul, whether the ref got any air in the whistle before the buzzer or not. 10-1-7 states that a team shall not "request an excessive time-out." No mention of granting the timeout.

I don't think this is as big an issue as is the issue of how much time do you put on the clock? Or are you saying that we give the T, and if the free throws could affect the outcome of the game, shoot them, and then game-over/OT? Assume it was a tied game, team B hit the 2 tech FTs, so now they're up by 2. You *know* team A coach is going ballistic asking how they can get charged a timeout with 0:0.0 remaining. He'll say naturally if we grant the timeout, then it had to have come before expiration of the game clock.

I fully agree with you about granting the TO, and giving the T as a result...but my problem comes with how much time to put on the clock (if any). I don't think the best used-car salesperson in the world could try and sell that "no-time-left" explanation to the coach.

Sorry! I read past your post. I don't agree with this. It can't be a T/O until it is actually granted by the official. If the official never blew the whistle to acknowledge the T/O & time expires then there isn't a T/O, and since the T/O wasn't acknowledged then its not a excessive T/O just because the coach is requesting a T/O doesn't mean that we can grant it.

What if HC B team requests a T/O, when they have none left, while the A team has the ball? The officials don't obviously grant the T/O since the B team doesn't have the ball. According to your logic you would still pin the BHC with a "T" just for the request.

The request has to be granted in order for it to be a used T/O.

Case play 10.1.7....request & granted...

The request for timeout and the granting of the timeout are two different things. The granting (whistle) stops the clock, not the request by the coach. If the granting or attempt to grant (whistle) comes after no time on the clock, after the horn, then you can't have a time out or a technical foul. (R6.7.5&6)

In your scenario, "technical whether the ref got any air in the whistle or not" under 10-1-7 team shall not request an excessive time-out. If the ball is loose with no team control, Team A is trying to call timeout to stop the clock and you are aware team A has no timeout, which shouldn't matter whether you grant the timeout, you couldn't grant the time out because there is no team control, but in your application of the rule, you would issue a technical foul because they attempted to request an excessive timeout. IMO that's not the correct application of the rule.

It did last year. I don't have statistics to track past years. :)

We all have our opinions on who is best. The assignors hire who they think will do the best job for them. Those who don't get hired often have excuses.

This was what I intended in opening this up for discussion. As written, the request is what earns the technical. Period. 10-1-7 makes no mention of granting the timeout. Also, on another thread regarding granting a timeout quickly before the player landed out of bounds, several people here stated that the granting of a time out was a mental act which occurred instantly when the request was recognized, and had nothing to do with when the whistle sounded afterward. So, if one accepts these things, how can it not be a T if an excessive timeout is requested before the buzzer? Is it another one of those "just cuz" things?

You're making my point regarding Requesting vs. Granting. If A1 or coach requests a timeout, excessive or not, simultaneously at the buzzer or a millisecond before the buzzer and the buzzer goes off before I can grant the timeout, excessive or not, I'm not granting the timeout. If a player requests timeout before he commits a violation then I am granting the timeout before the violation. The whistle is already in my mouth and should take a millisecond to put air in it. I had a sitch last week in a regional semi-final game. I'm administering the throw-in and I complete my five in my five second count, at the same time I blow my whistle for the violation, the player inbounding requests a time out. I have a violation.

What does 6.7.5&6 have to do with this?

What is your point? The request is simple enough. When a timeout is granted is a gray area which is not specified very well.

R.5-8-3 should take care of that gray area for you.

That specifies when and how the ball becomes dead via the Officials Whistle (article 5) and end of the period (article 6). It doesn't become dead at the sound of the coaches or players voice when requesting a timeout.

Consider each player to be Chris Webber.