Time out

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Adam]

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!

If he did have a timeout, then it gets used in your situation. It's almost as satisfying, because 9 times out of 10 he's going to try to tell you that you can't charge it to him. He won't want to actually burn that timeout. Your shooter gets his free throw back (no harm really). Why would you go nuts?

Do you go nuts every time a timeout is granted to the coach when it shouldn't be (your team has the ball, for example)?

[ttt]

Just to be clear. The ball was passed to the player to attempt a FT. After this happened the opposing coach called Time Out. Next, the confused player passed the ball back to the official and players then started leaving the lane. The official then granted the time out. Then everything went down the tubes.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

You know we're not talking about free throws any more?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

You know we're not talking about free throws any more?

Ah, you didn't specify that (although I see how it's all but obvious from your post now), so I didn't make the switch.

No, I wouldn't in that case. Chances are, I'd let it hit me and drop. Lower level ball, I'd tap it back to him and tell him to play on. But as somone else noted, free throws have different rules of conduct.

[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.

[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.

[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.