The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 08, 2011, 02:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 280
Another TO question

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.
__________________
Refsmitty
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 08, 2011, 02:55pm
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,030
Legal.

5.8.3 Situation D
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 08, 2011, 02:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Refsmitty View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 08, 2011, 03:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: PG County, MD
Posts: 412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Refsmitty View Post
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 ...
__________________
You learn something new everyday ...
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 08, 2011, 03:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 280
Thanks

__________________
Refsmitty
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 08, 2011, 03:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 08, 2011, 05:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 14,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCRC View Post
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)

Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 08, 2011, 05:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 09, 2011, 12:01am
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 09, 2011, 10:34am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR

Last edited by Raymond; Fri Dec 09, 2011 at 12:22pm.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 09, 2011, 12:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: In the offseason.
Posts: 12,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
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.
__________________
Owner/Developer of RefTown.com
Commissioner, Portland Basketball Officials Association
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 09, 2011, 05:24pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef View Post
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Dec 09, 2011, 06:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
Yep, they should instead charge the TO and the violation.
Or just charge the timeout and move on.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sat Dec 10, 2011, 09:17am
Courageous When Prudent
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hampton Roads, VA
Posts: 14,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells View Post
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.
__________________
A-hole formerly known as BNR
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sun Dec 11, 2011, 01:02am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 346
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A question on a play and a mechanics question. aevans410 Baseball 11 Mon May 12, 2008 09:23am
two questions - start of half question and free throw question hoopguy Basketball 6 Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:12pm
Rule Question and Mechanics Question Stair-Climber Softball 15 Fri May 06, 2005 06:44am
Over the back Question? Sorry mistyped my first question CoaachJF Basketball 15 Thu Feb 27, 2003 03:18pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:34pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1