Time out

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I agree this one has been beat to death. The point I was making, which I thought needed to be said in this case, was that nothing the coach said or did could kill the play, this has to be done by the official.

The coach's time-out request came while A1 still had the ball and since his request was granted the ball became immediately dead when he made his request. Not possible for A1 to violate since the ball was dead.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

The coach's time-out request came while A1 still had the ball and since his request was granted the ball became immediately dead when he made his request. Not possible for A1 to violate since the ball was dead.

An improperly made request does not cause the ball to be immediately dead.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

An improperly made request does not cause the ball to be immediately dead.

If the request is recognized why wouldn't it?








You know, similar to "improper throw-in, coach's comment, 3-point shot taken, basket made, then a whistle."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

If the request is recognized why wouldn't it?

You know, similar to "improper throw-in, coach's comment, 3-point shot taken, basket made, then a whistle."

A foul causes the ball to be dead, a timeout request does not. When was the request granted? According to the OP, the player heard the request, threw the ball to the official, then the timeout was granted. I took this to mean the official originally intended to ignore the request.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

A foul causes the ball to be dead, a timeout request does not. When was the request granted? ...

In this case it made the ball dead b/c it was disconcertion.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

In this case it made the ball dead b/c it was disconcertion.

Nope, not immediately. Disconcertion is a delayed violation.

I was thinking I'd seen a case play or interp that indicated disconcertion by the bench was a technical foul; but I can't find it.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Nope, not immediately. Disconcertion is a delayed violation.
.

I'll amend. If the disconcertion causes the free-thrower to violate the ball becomes dead, the violation is ignored, and the free-thrower gets their shot.

And in this particular case I'm ignoring the time-out request b/c it was not a legal request and I did not recognize it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

An improperly made request does not cause the ball to be immediately dead.

No, but the granting of it does. And you have no idea when the TO was really granted from the confused description we're being given from a non-official.