Officials' Time-out signal and mechanic

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

My point is that team control is irrelevant to awarding a timeout.

see my post to Mick and see rule 5.8.3. Team control is relevant

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

see my post to Mick and see rule 5.8.3. Team control is relevant

No, it's not. You actually quoted the relevant part of the rule.

"Player control" is key, and yes it must be a player no that coach's team. However, "team" control is not mentioned.

A coach's team may have team control but a timeout still not be granted by rule.

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, it's not. You actually quoted the relevant part of the rule.

"Player control" is key, and yes it must be a player no that coach's team. However, "team" control is not mentioned.

A coach's team may have team control but a timeout still not be granted by rule.

Ok so now you are saying that a person dribbling a ball does not have team control? If there is player control there is team control

For completenes see rule 4.12.2

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

Ok so now you are saying that a person dribbling a ball does not have team control? If there is player control there is team control

But there can be team control and no player control. And a TO cannot be granted when there is no player control, even though team control exists. That was Snaq's point. (And Ch1town's)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

Ok so now you are saying that a person dribbling a ball does not have team control? If there is player control there is team control

That's not what I said. I said it's possible to have team control without player control. Player control is required for a timeout. Team control is not relevant because it's not sufficient.

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's not what I said. I said it's possible to have team control without player control. Player control is required for a timeout. Team control is not relevant because it's not sufficient.

Granted I used an example, but you missed the premise that you cannot JUST grant a time out to a coach because they requested that.
this is what this thread is about NOT my example. Did I miss something?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ILMalti

Granted I used an example, but you missed the premise that you cannot JUST grant a time out to a coach because they requested that.
this is what this thread is about NOT my example. Did I miss something?

I was correcting your teminology, because it's an important distiction. Threads veer slightly off topic all the time here, so it's normal to expand on someone's thought to make sure it is clarified. In fact, this particular thread was already off topic by the time you posted the team control reference.

Using the term "team control" in reference to granting a timeout just isn't correct.

[ILMalti]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I was correcting your teminology, because it's an important distiction. Threads veer slightly off topic all the time here, so it's normal to expand on someone's thought to make sure it is clarified. In fact, this particular thread was already off topic by the time you posted the team control reference.

Using the term "team control" in reference to granting a timeout just isn't correct.

Granted. I should put more thought when I use an example. Your point is well taken

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's not what I said. I said it's possible to have team control without player control. Player control is required for a timeout. Team control is not relevant because it's not sufficient.

So when the Lead is bouncing the ball to the free throw shooter.......

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

So when the Lead is bouncing the ball to the free throw shooter.......

Touche.
"or at the disposal of." Also applies to the thrower on a throwin.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Touche.
"or at the disposal of." Also applies to the thrower on a throwin.

I had to get you.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Touche.
"or at the disposal of." Also applies to the thrower on a throwin.

But if the lead is bouncing the ball at that moment, it is not yet at the disposal of the shooter/thrower. It only becomes at the disposal when it reaches the shooter/thrower (or when the ball is placed on the floor at the spot).

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That's not what I said. I said it's possible to have team control without player control. Player control is required for a timeout. Team control is not relevant because it's not sufficient.

Even though it is not sufficient, I wouldn't say it is not relevant. Team control is implied by player control.

Not relevant would be like saying that the ability to be granted a timeout depends on the number of team fouls.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Even though it is not sufficient, I wouldn't say it is not relevant. Team control is implied by player control.

Not relevant would be like saying that the ability to be granted a timeout depends on the number of team fouls.

When the question is, "what's sufficient to call a time out," the fact that player control implies team control is irrelevant. Team control is not sufficient. Player control is.

I won't quibble with the idea that team fouls are "more irrelevant."

[ILMalti]

I am glad we are so "anal" for words used in an example. Perhaps we should apply this "anality (does such a word exist?) to the rules


shame on me; especially when i am so pushy about the rules
I did say my example was incorrectly thought out...