order of enforcement

[johnsonboys03]

In nfhs you enforce in the order of the events correct?

A1 is trapped on the sideline and calls time out. B1 ties up the ball with A1. Transitioning trail calls the timeout. A1 the swings an elbow towards B1. No contact was made but very definite attempt to make contact. C official comes in with a technical coul. I'm L watching this all unfold. C doesn't give the T a chance to report the timeout. C then says the tech negates the time out. But then he allows the free throws to be administered then gives them the time out.

After the game I mentioned it should have been. T blows whistle for time out. C blows whistle indicating and making a preliminary call of a technical. Then t reports the timeout to table . Then c reports the technical to the table. The timeout starts on the report from the T. Then after the time out ends the game is resumed by shooting the technical foul shoots and B1 getting the ball across from table at mid court.

So which way should this be administered?

[deecee]

All wrong.

The TO gets called first. The swinging of the elbows with no contact is a violation if the ball is live. since its a dead ball no call or in your case maybe a T for unsporting behavior.

if it were contact and the ball is live its either a PC, Intentional foul or flagrant. In my neck of the woods the emphasis is intentional or flagrant. Since the ball is dead its either a a simple ol technical or its a flagrant T, or the lack of contact is ignored.

in your case, no contact so dead ball nothing, but you say the elbow was thrown with intent, so you have an unsporting T at the minimum. But in all reason ability you have nothing except a quick chat with the player to watch his elbows as justifying intent in this scenario is tough. But a T could be warranted and backed, just tough in most cases.

The way you described is the correct sequence. You cannot negate a legally granted TO.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by johnsonboys03

In nfhs you enforce in the order of the events correct?

A1 is trapped on the sideline and calls time out. B1 ties up the ball with A1. Transitioning trail calls the timeout. A1 the swings an elbow towards B1. No contact was made but very definite attempt to make contact. C official comes in with a technical coul. I'm L watching this all unfold. C doesn't give the T a chance to report the timeout. C then says the tech negates the time out. But then he allows the free throws to be administered then gives them the time out.

After the game I mentioned it should have been. T blows whistle for time out. C blows whistle indicating and making a preliminary call of a technical. Then t reports the timeout to table . Then c reports the technical to the table. The timeout starts on the report from the T. Then after the time out ends the game is resumed by shooting the technical foul shoots and B1 getting the ball across from table at mid court.

So which way should this be administered?

When shi happens in a game i get the partner who made the T call with me while our 3rd watches the players. We go over what should be done. then go report. Here, i would have told the person who called the T to report both and say--we had a timeout by team A, which will be a full or 30...we also have a technical foul on player 32. the FTs for that technical will be shot following the TO. start the timeout clock.

if you think about it if there was a T and no timeout called until after you reported the T youd still give them the TO and shoot the free throws when you come back out of it. this falls into the shi happens when shi hits the fan category. slow down, breathe and talk about it to be sure you have it straight. easier said here in the forum..than in the heat of it all...good luck to you.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by deecee

All wrong.

The TO gets called first. The swinging of the elbows with no contact is a violation if the ball is live. since its a dead ball no call or in your case maybe a T for unsporting behavior.

if it were contact and the ball is live its either a PC, Intentional foul or flagrant. In my neck of the woods the emphasis is intentional or flagrant. Since the ball is dead its either a a simple ol technical or its a flagrant T, or the lack of contact is ignored.

in your case, no contact so dead ball nothing, but you say the elbow was thrown with intent, so you have an unsporting T at the minimum. But in all reason ability you have nothing except a quick chat with the player to watch his elbows as justifying intent in this scenario is tough. But a T could be warranted and backed, just tough in most cases.

The way you described is the correct sequence. You cannot negate a legally granted TO.

Actually that is an intentional technical foul. The most common example is a shove during a dead ball period.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually that is an intentional technical foul. The most common example is a shove during a dead ball period.

You are correct. I was mixing the terminology in regards to a T for contact and no contact. When I re-read my post I realized I mixed a bit to much.

[referee99]

... help your crew out. Don't save it for a comment in the locker room. Even if it is a big dog taking your crew down the wrong path.