Inadvertent whistle, oh my
 

Situation:

Final minute of the championship game of an extremely competitive men's league game. It was a 1-point game at the time with the team leading (team A) at the line for one free throw. Team B looks at me before I throw the ball to the thrower and notifies me that they will be requesting a timeout on the rebound. No problem.

Team A misses the free throw and Team B is in position for the rebound. They start yelling timeout just as a teammate attempts to grab the ball. I whistle sharply and the ball quirts out. Fuuuuuuuudge.

Of course a commotion erupts as they didn't have possession...Dang butterfingers...."Gentleman, we have a timeout granted". Partners come together and I start it off, "Sorry guys, this situation is my fault. I have a timeout granted. Inadvertent whistle with no possession, we go to the possession arrow. They agree with the interpretation and we line up for the possession arrow throw in. I was lucky that Team B had the possession arrow in their favor.

The problem lie in that almost all of team B officiate in my local association and D3 college women, a few of them insist that "announced right away that there was an inadvertent whistle with no team control. Therefore, the possession arrow would determine possession and that it would have been our ball. Then you should have asked our team if we still wanted the timeout."

I agree that I should have announced the inadvertent right away and rules before the timeout but I don't agree that they may be able to "revoke" their request. What do you all think? Is NCAA M or W different than HS?

One of them cites the situation in NCAA W, "Coach A called timeout when Team B had the ball bringing it up the court. My partner mistakenly blew his whistle and said time-out for Team A. I ran over and corrected him and said that Team B had the ball and that Team A couldn’t call timeout. We explained to the coaches that we had an inadvertent whistle and that it would be Team B's ball at the spot where the ball was. We then asked if Team A still wanted a timeout. I think they said they did not want the time out and we inbounded the ball." Is this a correct ruling?

Thank you as always

-Josh

3 man for rec league?

For most of their tourney we do. Most of the players are former college players (DI-DII) within the past 5 years. It's really quite a competitive league towards the end of the finals.

-Josh

Fun...............game fee?

Rule sets differe on this. NFHS, grant the timeout, ball to the team with AP. I believe one of the two NCAA genders does not allow this, perhaps both.

We make $18-21/game depending on the years worked in the league. The games are 20 minutes halves, running clock except the last 1 minute of each half. The games last about 45-50 minutes. It's usually quite fun and competitive.

-Josh

What request? :confused: They still haven't made a legal request, under any ruleset. How can you revoke what they never had? How can you grant a TO request that was never legally made?

The people on team B who are officials are telling you what the rules are...no more/no less. You had an inadvertent whistle with neither team in control. You now have to go to the arrow to determine possession. And seeing that the ball is dead, you can now also grant a TO request if one is made. What you couldn't do (and what got you into trouble trying to do) was grant an illegal TO request. And by rule you can't grant that illegal TO request either before or after your IW.

Don't compound your screw-up by screwing up another one.

Grant the TO only if a legal TO request is now made.

There are very few times I disagree with you, but this would be one of them. Check out 5.8.3 Sit (E).

If jdmara was using NCAA-W rules, the players would be correct. Under NFHS rules, jdmra handled it correctly.

There was a TO request made in that case play, a request that was immediately responded to. When was the TO request made in the OP? Answer--->at some indeterminate time well before the actual whistle. In 5.8.3SitE(a) would you still have granted that request if the coach hadda said "I want a TO 3 possessions from now"?

In that case play, the official was responding to what he/she thought was a legitimate TO request. In the OP, the official is responding to what he should know is NOT a legal TO request. Big difference imho....

Apples and oranges......

Under NFHS rules, you can only grant TO requests as per rule 5-8-3. If you follow that rule, you won't get yourself into trouble as in the OP.

Nice reference. With regards to a timeout erroneously being granted, the cited NFHS case states "once granted it cannot be revoked".

Whenever a request is made for a future situation, it is always good to ask them to request it at that time. The onus is on the team to make the request. That way, you never put yourself in that position. You can look to the bench at that time to grant a request, but a TO on a rebound is much more difficult to anticipate than after a made FT.

I guess you're doing it for the love of the game. 18 dollars? Wow.

From the OP "Team A misses the free throw and Team B is in position for the rebound. They start yelling timeout just as a teammate attempts to grab the ball. I whistle sharply and the ball quirts out."

I am still thinking this one thru, but does this change your thoughts? JR? M&M?

Um...you might want to re-read it - he said the players told him in advance, but then were also yelling for the TO during the rebounding action. Iow, jdmara was responding to a TO request at the time of the request, not at some point in the future. And I do happen to agree with you that we should not get into the habit of granting requests for some point in the future, even if it's the near future. You might be confusing this thread with JRut's thread in which Brad responded; I happen to fall into the camp where I acknowledge the coach's request ("Give me a TO on the make.") by telling them to simply re-affirm the request at the proper time. Sometimes I tell them I have terrible short-term memory and to simply nod at me at the proper time. Almost all coaches I've dealt with understand this principle.

So, apples and apples. :)

While I agree an official should only grant TO requests during certain specified times, this case play tells us if the improper request is still acknowledged, the TO is still granted.

I happen to own both rules (NFHS and NCAA-W) very well. :(

It is nice to have you back, even though our first conversation has to be a disagreement. But, something\'s missing...shouldn\'t one of us be telling the other to shut up? :confused: :D