Time out

[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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

Okay, I may have wandered on one post or the other about what we were talking about.

Bottom line: The bogus timeout can either be ignored, considered to be disconcertion and penalized accordingly, or granted, and penalized with the T if that team had no timeouts.

But only one of those 3 options, agreed?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Okay, I may have wandered on one post or the other about what we were talking about.

Bottom line: The bogus timeout can either be ignored, considered to be disconcertion an penalized accordingly, or granted, and penalized with the T if that team had no timeouts.

But only one of those 3 options, agreed?

I disagree. As stated before, I see no reason you can't rule the request to be disconcertion at the same time you grant the request.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I disagree. As stated before, I see no reason you can't rule the request to be disconcertion at the same time you grant the request.

I can. It is disconcertion if you don't grant the TO request and the free thrower violated because of that TO request. It isn't disconcertion if you wrongfully grant the TO request before the FT shooter violates. It's just a dead ball and the FT shooter then gets all of his merited FTs anyway.

Make sense?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I can. It is disconcertion if you don't grant the TO request and the free thrower violated because of that TO request. It isn't disconcertion if you wrongfully grant the TO request before the FT shooter violates. It's just a dead ball and the FT shooter then gets all of his merited FTs anyway.

Make sense?

Sure makes sense to me

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I can. It is disconcertion if you don't grant the TO request and the free thrower violated because of that TO request. It isn't disconcertion if you wrongfully grant the TO request before the FT shooter violates. It's just a dead ball and the FT shooter then gets all of his merited FTs anyway.

Make sense?

Yeah, I can see it. No common sense justification for calling disconcertion when the act that caused it caused the ball to become dead immediately.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Bottom line: The bogus timeout can either be ignored, considered to be disconcertion and penalized accordingly, or granted, and penalized with the T if that team had no timeouts.

But only one of those 3 options, agreed?

Yup, I agree.

The TO request can be ignored in that situation because it's invalid by rule anyway. Or we can consider the TO request as disconcertion if it affected the FT, not grant that TO request and then penalize the request accordingly as disconcertion. Or if we granted the TO by mistake, we'd then penalize the excess TO with the thrower getting the FT's again anyway because the ball was dead on the request.