Time out

[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.