Time out

[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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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.

At the very least, I have disconcertion on the coach. New shots for the shooter. Coach would likely try to get a violation called against the shooter, which would likely result in an unsporting T for trying "to influence an official's decision." (10-4-1b)

Making the coach burn (or buy) a TO is icing, AFAIC.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by 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.

How do you know the official granted the time-out then? He may have granted the timeout request while the free throw shooter still held the ball. He administered the subsequent play that way according to your description. By rule the time-out is granted not when the whistle goes but when the official recognizes and grants the time-out request. There's always some kind of time lag...usually small...between granting the timeout and blowing the whistle to signify that granting.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

How do you know the official granted the time-out then? He may have granted the timeout request while the free throw shooter still held the ball. He administered the subsequent play that way according to your description. By rule the time-out is granted not when the whistle goes but when the official recognizes and grants the time-out request. There's always some kind of time lag...usually small...between granting the timeout and blowing the whistle to signify that granting.

+1, and his internal debate (who called that) may have been interrupted and sped up by the players leaving the lane.

As quickly as this all likely happened, I'm happy with the resolution.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by 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.

In this case, I think if the timeout was not granted until after the shooter threw the ball away, it should not be granted unless he asked for it again. It's disconcertion or an improperly granted timeout, not both. If it comes to light afterward that it was all a tactic and was intentionally done and you want to T the coach for that, that's different.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

In this case, I think if the timeout was not granted until after the shooter threw the ball away, it should not be granted unless he asked for it again. It's disconcertion or an improperly granted timeout, not both. If it comes to light afterward that it was all a tactic and was intentionally done and you want to T the coach for that, that's different.

If you do the timeout, the disconcertion is moot. It can, however, be unsporting and disconcertion.

They could conceivably have gone with two Ts here. One for unsporting, the other for excessive TO; although that goes against the philosophy of one foul for one act.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by 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 to be clear, I don't know how much clearer we can be.

The timeout is granted to the coach, whether he has one or not.

If he doesn't, it's a technical foul as well.

The FT shooter will still get both FTs.