Another TO question

[Refsmitty]

Brainbrian's post made me think of something else...

NFHS - A player goes airborn, grabs the ball, and calls a time out before landing out of bounds - legal?

I see nothing that prohibits it in the books.

[tjones1]

Legal.

5.8.3 Situation D

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Refsmitty

Brainbrian's post made me think of something else...

NFHS - A player goes airborn, grabs the ball, and calls a time out before landing out of bounds - legal?

I see nothing that prohibits it in the books.

Legal in NFHS. Not supposed to be allowed in NCAA (if the whistle is blown, it becomes an IW).

[PG_Ref]

Originally Posted by Refsmitty

Brainbrian's post made me think of something else...

NFHS - A player goes airborn, grabs the ball, and calls a time out before landing out of bounds - legal?

I see nothing that prohibits it in the books.

Case play 5.8.3 Sit D

A1 or A2 requests a time-out: (a) while airborne A1 is holding the ball; (b) while A1's throw-in is in flight toward A2; or (c) when the ball is on the floor at A1's disposal for a throw-in.

RULING: The request is granted in (a) and (c), but denied in (b), as there is no player control while the ball is loose between players.


As long as player control exists ...

[Refsmitty]

[KCRC]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Legal in NFHS. Not supposed to be allowed in NCAA (if the whistle is blown, it becomes an IW).

I was not aware of the IW part, so I looked it up in the casebook. A.R. 155. That's really a great result for the team requesting the TO. They get the ball pack at POI and they don't have to burn a TO.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by KCRC

I was not aware of the IW part, so I looked it up in the casebook. A.R. 155. That's really a great result for the team requesting the TO. They get the ball pack at POI and they don't have to burn a TO.

That is an awful ruling. It should be that no time-out will be granted and the violation will instead be called. What a poor job by the rules writers on that one.

Timeouts Not Charged

A.R. 155.

Player A1 is airborne and momentum is carrying him/her out of
bounds. A1, while airborne and in control of the ball, requests a
timeout. The official:
(1) Inadvertently blows the whistle; or
(2) Blows the whistle and immediately grants a timeout.

RULING: In both (1) and (2), the officials shall not recognize this
request. The official’s whistle is an inadvertent whistle that caused the
ball to become dead. Play will be resumed at the point of interruption
by awarding the ball to Team A, the team in control, at a designated
spot nearest to where the ball was located. Before placing the ball at
Team A’s disposal for a throw-in, the official is permitted to inquire as
to whether Team A still wants a timeout.
(Rule 4-39, 4-53.1.a, 5-12.1.c and 7-5.16)

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That is an awful ruling. It should be that no time-out will be granted and the violation will instead be called. What a poor job by the rules writers on that one.

Agreed. If I was a college coach, I'd be teaching my players to call timeout anyway in that type of situation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fiasco

Agreed. If I was a college coach, I'd be teaching my players to call timeout anyway in that type of situation.

Yep, they should instead charge the TO and the violation.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yep, they should instead charge the TO and the violation.

Problem is that technically we'd be ruling something a violation that had not occurred yet when the whistle had blown.

I look at it just like the correctable error rule, the price for the OFFICIAL being wrong ends up hurting one team and we need to get the play right in the first place or live with the rule book consequences.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Problem is that technically we'd be ruling something a violation that had not accorded yet when the whistle had blown.

I look at it just like the correctable error rule, the price for the OFFICIAL being wrong ends up hurting one team and we need to get the play right in the first place or live with the rule book consequences.

I think they should just charge the timeout. That would be the fair ruling rather than letting them keep the ball and the timeout.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Problem is that technically we'd be ruling something a violation that had not occurred yet when the whistle had blown.

I look at it just like the correctable error rule, the price for the OFFICIAL being wrong ends up hurting one team and we need to get the play right in the first place or live with the rule book consequences.

The actual rule punishes the team for a violation that hasn't yet happened but is imminent. I see no reason they can't punish the team for making the request. At the very least, as Camron suggests, grant and charge the TO on the whistle.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yep, they should instead charge the TO and the violation.

Or just charge the timeout and move on.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The actual rule punishes the team for a violation that hasn't yet happened but is imminent. I see no reason they can't punish the team for making the request. At the very least, as Camron suggests, grant and charge the TO on the whistle.

Then there would be no purpose for the rule.

One of those situations where the onus is on the officials to know the situation. You know, like how we say the onus is on the coaches to know if they have time-outs or should be shooting free throws or whether the coaches sent the right amount of players back on the court after a time-out.

[refiator]

I'd like to see a rule change in NHSF requiring possession of the ball with at least one foot on the floor for a time-out to be granted.