debate between me and another
 

So I'm ref'ing a JV basketball game today and my partner, before the game, tells me about a game he did last night.

A and B in a JV game. Girls game. B was pressing A, and the ball was taking out on the baseline. My buddy tells me he's the lead on table side, and is at the half court during the pressing. A1 throws the ball into A2 and has control of ball. At this time, my buddy tells me he has heard a coach yell "time out" and blows his whistle to award the time out. But, when he turns around, he realized it was B's head coach calling the time out and not A, while A had the ball inbound. What do you have?

I was debating about this with another referee at the bar tonight, and he said that it is an inadvertent (spelling) whistle and that you go to the arrow. I disagree because A had control of the ball, thus should still possess the ball in their control. But, do you then give B their time-out because the clock is dead and the ball shall be taken out of bounds? I'm confused, and I didn't get a chance to look it up in the rule book under NFHS rules.

You would still grant the time-out and the subsequent throw-in spot would be nearest where A2 possessed the ball.

Ok, but who gets the ball... A or do you go to arrow?

Time-out B. Check out 5.8.3 Situation E

It is still A's ball.

A gets the ball. No arrow.

Thank you Tjones. I was more correct in this debate than he was. I said that since A had control, you give it back to them, but I wasn't sure if you could still grant them the time out. He said you go to the arrow and then grant the time out.

thanks again!

Looks to me like you were both 50% right. :)

and 50% wrong :(. no brownie points. only star stickers which kick arse anyways

Ok... but how would you explain why you would need to go to the arrow? I would have much rather tell the coach "You can't call time out, A had the ball in bound" and then take the ball out of bounds for a throw-in, instead of saying "oh, it goes to the arrow now" and not be able to explain that. I would have been wrong to say that the coach cannot have a time-out since the ball was in play and shall be placed back into play asap unless A wants a time-out (as would have been allowed had the ball still be in play), but would have been right to give the ball back to A. I think I get more "brownie points" for that than my buddy would if he were to go to the arrow. These are the kind of situations you can get into trouble with, especially in a close game with just minutes left.

I actually just remembered a few minutes ago that i had this very same situation my first season as a basketball official. The one very small detail that makes it slightly different is that I heard B's head coach call time out before the ball was placed in bounds by A, and I was a little slow to blowing the whistle and granting the time out. A got the ball in just as I was blowing the whistle. Then, I didn't know how to explain the situation to A's head coach but I got it right anyways. Granted B the time out, and gave A the ball out-of-bounds after the play. I just can't remember if I gave A the baseline to run or not, as it was an in-bound play at the baseline after a made basket in a very close game.

You bring up a good point. There have been a whole slew of postings here lately where perfectly reasonable officials, for no explainable reason, want to solve whatever quandary they have gotten themselves into...by going to the arrow.

If I were king of basketball, I think I'd take the arrow away until these folks learned how to properly solve the 99% of situations that resume using POI or some means other than the arrow. Then maybe, and only maybe, I'd give it back. ;)

You can't, because there is no conceivable way that you would use the AP arrow in this situation. Ideally, you should ignore a timeout request from B's coach since he couldn't request one at the time. I really hope your buddy that you were arguing with isn't doing any games above the junior high level. If we used the AP arrow in this situation, what is to keep B's coach from requesting timeouts all the time when his team has the arrow, hoping he can get one of the officials to grant it?

So the ball was at A's disposal for a throw-in and you granted B's coach a timeout? Or did B score and before it was at A's disposal, B's coach requested a timeout? You might want to clean up your posts and be more clear about what was happening so it is easier to give you a straight answer.

That's exactly my point. You CAN'T explain that. I asked him that question and he gave me some bull**** and said that if he didn't know how to explain it, he would just tell the coach "hey, it's in the rulebook, and I don't make the rules". And yet, he's doing district championship games and local small DIII college games.

Sorry. B shot the ball and made it. A had the ball to pass it in. If I remember correctly, B was pressing A so A could not get the ball into play right away. B's Head Coach calls a time out while A still had the ball out of bounds for the throw-in. I acknowledged it, but had a slight delay with my whistle. When I finally blew the whistle to grant B a time out, the ball was on it's way in-bounds.

Does that make better sense?

Stop arguing about this play. It is very simple. You read what it says in the Case Book and do that. There's nothing to discuss.

5.8.3 SITUATION E: A1 is dribbling the ball in his/her backcourt when: (a) the
Team B head coach requests and is erroneously granted a time-out by an official;
or (b) the Team A head coach is yelling “side out” offensive instructions to his/her
team and the official stops play believing the coach requested a time-out. RULING:
In (a), Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was requested and
granted; once granted it cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B. All privileges
and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams.
Play will resume with a Team A throw-in nearest to where play was stopped. In
(b), an accidental whistle has occurred. Team A was not requesting a time-out,
and therefore, should not be granted or charged with one. Play is resumed at the
point of interruption. (4-36-1; 4-36-2a)

There was no arguing between me and the other forum members, I got it clear now.

Does anyone actually read all of the case book though? Some of these situations are almost never to happen.

Those of us who have been around for several years have spent many hours reading through that book. Some of us have even authored a few of the play situations. So, yes, we are aware of everything which is in it and have read the whole thing.

Well, I just finished the last book I was reading, so I'll put the case book on my list then. Thanks :)

Good idea, if you wish to progress past JV ball. :)

Thanks.

I like your signature btw. That was apparently the case in another game I had this past weekend, where I, as a T, was calling a charge, and a second or two later I hear my partner's whistle go off and he's calling block. I was stunned enough that he did beat me to the table, and I was right in front of the table pretty much haha.

Official call: Block. the right call: charge.

Yes. And the Rule Book. How else are you going to learn? As a new ref (2nd yr.& going through the process of passing wriiten&floor exams to make my board)...I know that the more I read it (and I'll never know it cold) the more I improve in my understanding of the basic tenets of the game. A good example of this is in BITS' reply about proper use of the A/P arrow. Casebook helps you grasp/understand the A/P arrow....not only when/how to use it, but most importantly when NOT to use it. One of the concepts the vets in charge of the 2nd yr. non-certified refs on our board have been hammering into our heads in classes this year is proper use/application and understanding of POI and A/P arrow.
Also, as Nevada showed in his reply...the answer to the "knotty problem" in your OP was right in the casebook....no debate as to what was the proper thing to do in the game.

NFHS rules call: double foul, resume at the POI.

And would you also take BillyMac's suggestion of a coin flip instead of a jump ball too? ;)

My confusion is whether you still believe you were right in this situation.

You can't grant B's timeout request if it came after A has the ball at their disposal for the throw-in. Whether the throw-in has ended or not is of no consequence. B shouldn't have been granted a timeout in this scenario, either.

I'll also add, in addition to the points already made, that reading those plays there are 'almost never to happen' is a tremendous way to truly understand the rules.

If you understand why one of those extremely rare cases is ruled the way it is, then you should have no problem when determining the correct ruling in a related but less rare scenario.

The case book is not written to give specific examples of every possible play, but rather to clarify the ruling on situations that can be applied to many other situations you will encounter.

The fact that they are in the case book means that they actually did happen somewhere.

The case book is not there to help you with the things that happen in every ball game every night. You're expected to know that before you get on the floor.

Reading the Case Book
 

I was sitting in the living room last week reading the case book. My son entered the room and saw me reading the book and said "Dad, why are reading that book when you already passed the test". I showed him the case book and told him there was knowing the rules, and knowing how to practically apply the rules. I spend about two hours a week with the cases and learn something each time.

My only issue with the case book is the format where the editors use the situation (a) (b) (C) (d) scenarios. I understand why it's done that way ... doesn't make it any easier to read though.

Almost being the key word. And plays don't have to happen exactly as the case plays cited for the principles to be applied.

But good officials most definitely read the case book, especially after a situation like you had. ANYTIME I have a questionable ruling or scenario in a game I go to the case & rule books as soon as possible after the game (or even during hafltime).

Whenever I go to lunch by myself I read either the case book, rule book, or manual while dining.

Fixed it for you, as I like to do cruising down the tri state.

And I added some for you!

Sorry for not being clear. This was a block/charge play, couldn't have been double foul.

I think you need to read 4.19.8 Situation C. ;)

Not really my situation explained though, since the shooter never got airborne. This was not a shooting situation, but an on-the-floor situation.

That's not the point of the case play. Opposing prelims on a block charge play equal a double foul. Nevada's tagline is tongue in cheek.

I couldn't agree more. See how logical this sounds?

What does contact with the floor or being airborne have to do with the act of shooting?

That case play definitely covers your situation. If there is no try for goal on the play, then you apply the POI rule and resume accordingly as detailed in the following interp.

2005-06 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations
SITUATION 8: A1 has control of the ball in Team A's frontcourt. Post players A5 and B5 are pushing each other in an attempt to gain a more advantageous position on the block while (a) A1 is dribbling the ball; (b) the ball is in the air on a pass from A1 to A2; or (c) the ball is in the air on an unsuccessful try for goal by A1. An official calls a double personal foul on A5 and B5. RULING: In (a) and (b), Team A had control of the ball when the double foul occurred, and thus play will be resumed at the point of interruption. Team A will have a designated spot throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. In (c), no team has control while a try for goal is in flight, and since the try was unsuccessful, there is no obvious point of interruption. Play will be resumed with an alternating possession throw-in nearest the location where the ball was located when the double foul occurred. Had the try been successful, the point of interruption would have been a throw-in for Team B from anywhere along the end line. (4-36; 6-4-3g; 7-5-9)


Sounds inexperienced with a great deal to learn to me.

I had almost the exact same thing happen tonight. A had the ball, B head coach called timeout. I blew the whistle and when I realized the wrong team called the timeout, I gave the ball back to A at the nearest point, did not grant the timeout. I don't understand the logic of AP your buddy was talking about.

I don't understand why you didn't give the timeout.

As for the AP, some people have it in their heads that everytime there's an IW, the answer is the arrow.

Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right ...
 

I don't either. Once the whistle is sounded, for whatever reason, correct, or incorrect, the ball is dead. Once the ball is dead, either team can request, and be granted, a timeout, with rare exceptions for injured, or disqualified players, successive with 0:00, etc.

On-the-floor
 

A matter of semantics, but just because the foul happened "on the floor" does not mean it isn't a shooting foul. A player can be held so that they may not leave the floor but still start the shooting motion. In that case, we'd still award the player with 2/3 shoots.