Time out

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

By the way, exactly when a timeout is granted is not defined in the rules. An editorial revision is needed.

It when the whistle is sounded. That is the only logical reason for the timer to stop the clock and the players to cease action. It is also the only one of the rules under 6-7 for making the ball dead which applies to time-out requests during a live ball.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It when the whistle is sounded. That is the only logical reason for the timer to stop the clock and the players to cease action. It is also the only one of the rules under 6-7 for making the ball dead which applies to time-out requests during a live ball.

When I suggested something to this effect once, an angry mob formed.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It when the whistle is sounded. That is the only logical reason for the timer to stop the clock and the players to cease action. It is also the only one of the rules under 6-7 for making the ball dead which applies to time-out requests during a live ball.

Here we go again. Can I just summarize the argument that will now ensue so we can all skip having it?

"No, it isn't."

"Yes, it is."

Thank you.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Here we go again. Can I just summarize the argument that will now ensue so we can all skip having it?

"No, it isn't."

"Yes, it is."

Thank you.

Thanks for that, Rich.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Here we go again. Can I just summarize the argument that will now ensue so we can all skip having it?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Here we go again. Can I just summarize the argument that will now ensue so we can all skip having it?

"No, it isn't."

"Yes, it is."

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Consider it skipped.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

Not necessarily. If you have disconcertion (delayed) and have the timeout before A1 shoots, the delayed violation carries through the timeout and the first shot will resume with a delayed violation pending. A timeout doesn't erase a delayed violation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Not necessarily. If you have disconcertion (delayed) and have the timeout before A1 shoots, the delayed violation carries through the timeout and the first shot will resume with a delayed violation pending. A timeout doesn't erase a delayed violation.

Good point, I'd forgotten about that.

[just another ref]

If you granted the timeout, there's no disconcertion, because there's no free throw.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If you granted the timeout, there's no disconcertion, because there's no free throw.

Soooooooo........

Case book play 9.1.3SitC doesn't exist, same as 4.19.8SitC?

Got it.

What color is the sky in your world, BITS?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Soooooooo........

Case book play 9.1.3SitC doesn't exist, same as 4.19.8SitC?

Got it.

What color is the sky in your world, BITS?

If the timeout was granted when requested, the ball was dead, so there was no violation.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If the timeout was granted when requested, the ball was dead, so there was no violation.

Did you even bother to read that case play cited? The rules say that statement is wrong.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If the timeout was granted when requested, the ball was dead, so there was no violation.

Wrong. There's nothing that prevents you from both granting the request and ruling the request itself to be disconcertion. As the case play states, the delayed violation would then carry over to the FT following the TO.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Did you even bother to read that case play cited? The rules say that statement is wrong.

I'm not talking about the case play, I'm talking about the situation at hand, to which this case play does not apply. In the OP, if you consider the coach's timeout request to be disconcertion, (I don't) then when the shooter throws the ball to the official, the disconcertion is penalized. If you choose to (improperly) grant this bogus timeout request by the devious coach, then the ball is dead, so there is no violation by anybody.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I'm not talking about the case play, I'm talking about the situation at hand, to which this case play does not apply. In the OP, if you consider the coach's timeout request to be disconcertion, (I don't) then when the shooter throws the ball to the official, the disconcertion is penalized. If you choose to (improperly) grant this bogus timeout request by the devious coach, then the ball is dead, so there is no violation by anybody.

It's kinda hard to figure something like that out, BITS, when you don't point it out and you also respond directly to 2 posts by Snaqs and me talking about something different.

And the biggest difference/problem in that discussion is that in the case play considering a player's wrongful TO request as disconcertion (9.1.3SIB COMMENT ), there was no TO granted. If you had granted the TO, you would also have to penalize that team for taking an excess TO. Instead, you don't grant the TO and call the disconcertion instead.

Two different case plays for two different situations iow....one with a timeout granted and one with no TO granted but disconcertion called instead of granting the TO.