Time out

[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.

[just another ref]

I have a hard time calling this disconcertion.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I have a hard time calling this disconcertion.

Why? You either have to do that or call the violation. Or, I guess, consider the TO request to have been granted.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I have a hard time calling this disconcertion.

I'm only going with 1 of 2 things here:

1.) Disconcertion on Coach B, ignore the violation, and A1 getting 2 free throws.

or

2.) Unsporting T on Coach B, which means ball became dead immediately, A1 gets 2 free throws, any A player gets 2 more free throws, Team A gets a throw-in at half court.

In either situation I'm not penalizing for an excess time-out as I would never have recognized the time-out request since there was Team A control.

I'm thinking all parties and my supervisors would live with #1.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why? You either have to do that or call the violation. Or, I guess, consider the TO request to have been granted.

It is ultimately the responsibility of the player to know what makes the ball dead.

Team A is holding the ball, sitting on a small lead late in the game. Coach B yells "Time out!" A1 tosses you the ball. You gonna somehow give it back to him here?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

There is a case book play stating to penalize a verbal fake with a violation, such as one player telling an opponent to switch lane spaces after the shooter has the ball.

9.1.3 SITUATION B: While A1’s free-throw attempt is in flight toward the basket:
(a) B1; or (b) A2, in a marked lane space, fakes by rocking forward causing
an opponent to enter the lane prematurely. RULING: In (a), the official will use the
proper signal indicating a violation by B1 and a substitute free throw is awarded
if A1’s attempt is unsuccessful. If it is successful, the violation is ignored. In (b),
the official will sound his/her whistle immediately when A2 violates. The violation
cancels A1’s attempt and it is B’s ball for a throw-in, unless an additional free
throw(s) is involved. COMMENT: If a player uses verbal tactics like “you’re in my space”
or a time-out request to fake an opponent into violations, only the fake is
penalized. (9-1-3b Penalty 1, 4d)

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

9.1.3 SITUATION B: While A1’s free-throw attempt is in flight toward the basket:
(a) B1; or (b) A2, in a marked lane space, fakes by rocking forward causing
an opponent to enter the lane prematurely. RULING: In (a), the official will use the
proper signal indicating a violation by B1 and a substitute free throw is awarded
if A1’s attempt is unsuccessful. If it is successful, the violation is ignored. In (b),
the official will sound his/her whistle immediately when A2 violates. The violation
cancels A1’s attempt and it is B’s ball for a throw-in, unless an additional free
throw(s) is involved. COMMENT: If a player uses verbal tactics like “you’re in my space”
or a time-out request to fake an opponent into violations, only the fake is
penalized. (9-1-3b Penalty 1, 4d)

That's the one and provides clear rules direction on how to handle this situation. That is exactly what the coach did in the OP.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

9.1.3 SITUATION B: While A1’s free-throw attempt is in flight toward the basket:
(a) B1; or (b) A2, in a marked lane space, fakes by rocking forward causing
an opponent to enter the lane prematurely. RULING: In (a), the official will use the
proper signal indicating a violation by B1 and a substitute free throw is awarded
if A1’s attempt is unsuccessful. If it is successful, the violation is ignored. In (b),
the official will sound his/her whistle immediately when A2 violates. The violation
cancels A1’s attempt and it is B’s ball for a throw-in, unless an additional free
throw(s) is involved. COMMENT: If a player uses verbal tactics like “you’re in my space”
or a time-out request to fake an opponent into violations, only the fake is
penalized. (9-1-3b Penalty 1, 4d)

To use the words of another esteemed member, doesn't exactly cover the OP but it's close enough for me to use.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is ultimately the responsibility of the player to know what makes the ball dead.

Team A is holding the ball, sitting on a small lead late in the game. Coach B yells "Time out!" A1 tosses you the ball. You gonna somehow give it back to him here?

Yep. Every time. Knowing the coach has no timeouts left would only make me more likely to give it to him here. The case play seems pretty clear on this. And if I don't grant the TO and the shooter takes the shot and misses, I'll give him another one.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It is ultimately the responsibility of the player to know what makes the ball dead.

Team A is holding the ball, sitting on a small lead late in the game. Coach B yells "Time out!" A1 tosses you the ball. You gonna somehow give it back to him here?

If you rule the Coach's action to be unsporting, then yes, at the division line after 2 free throws.

Or not.

But it's not the same as causing a free thrower to violate. There are different rules for free throws then there are for other live play.

[APG]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I have a hard time calling this disconcertion.

Really? I'd have a real easy time calling disconcertion here. There's no reason for the coach to be calling timeout here.

[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.

[ttt]

What would have happened if he actually did have a time-out? My impression is that some refs that see through the BS would either call disconcertion or un-sportsman like conduct. Its scary to think, depending on the official and the "interpratation" of the rule that a coach could possibly get away with this. More than likely not with an experienced crew, but I can tell you that as a coach I would go nuts if this happened to me!

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by ttt

What would have happened if he actually did have a time-out? My impression is that some refs that see through the BS would either call disconcertion or un-sportsman like conduct. Its scary to think, depending on the official and the "interpratation" of the rule that a coach could possibly get away with this. More than likely not with an experienced crew, but I can tell you that as a coach I would go nuts if this happened to me!

Once the ball is dead (after it's passed back to the official), the timeout is granted, whether he wants it or not.