TO request when you have no timeouts

[Knights_Coach]

I always thought refs granted the TO, then a tech ie Chris Webber Michigan. Growing up we were always taught, "don't call a TO if you are out, the ref 'will' give you a tech." It was never, he "might" give you a tech. I've been searching for this answer. Here goes the scenario:

During our overtime game. With seconds left in the game, it's tied 52-52, both teams were in the double bonus, the ball is dead, Team A(them) had the possession on the baseline trying to inbound ball & advance down the court. Team B(us) played full court press and almost got a 5 sec count, team A's inbounding player signaled timeout to the referee near him, who was right next to him. He never granted it, shook his head no. Team A inbounded it and it was tipped by Team B toward the half court line, Team A's possession there. I tried to ask the referee why didn't he get a tech because it was clear that he was requesting one. He then told me, he doesn't have to grant him one. All the while Team A drives to the hole and and gets fouled with 0.3 seconds left. Sinks 1, Team A commits a lane violation on the second. We didn't have any timeouts and w/ only 0.3 seconds we rolled the ball but didn't make the shot, end of ball game 52-53. We were the #8 seeded team vs the #1 seeded team.

NFHS 2014-15 Rule 5: Scoring and Timing Regulations, Section 11: Charged Time-Outs, Article 6 says: Time-outs in excess of the allotted number may be requested and shall be granted during regulation playing time or any extra period at the expense of a technical foul for each, as in 10-1-7.
PENALTY: (Section 1) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in. (Art. 7) Penalized when discovered.

The Bible says thou "shall" not kill, adultery, steal, etc. Shall means "will" not "sometimes" or "at discretion."

[bob jenkins]

The referee was wrong on the TO.

And, if he was almost at 5 seconds and then the TO was requested and denied -- he was likely at 5 seconds before the ball was released.

[johnny d]

How old was the guy. I vaguely remember some stupid rule about not being able to request a timeout after the throw in count reached a certain number. This was way before my time and might not even have existed. Maybe the guy thought that was still a rule.

MTD can gives a history lesson if such a rule did exist

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by johnny d

How old was the guy. I vaguely remember some stupid rule about not being able to request a timeout after the throw in count reached a certain number. This was way before my time and might not even have existed. Maybe the guy thought that was still a rule.

MTD can gives a history lesson if such a rule did exist

After 80% of the count had expired. (I believe that was at the same time the 5 second count did not end until the ball was touched in bounds -- I don't know if both changed at the same time, but I believe both changed quite a long time ago.)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by johnny d

How old was the guy. I vaguely remember some stupid rule about not being able to request a timeout after the throw in count reached a certain number. Maybe the guy thought that was still a rule.

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

After 80% of the count had expired.

Ah yes, Grasshopper, it was called a "Change of Status".

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by johnny d

How old was the guy. I vaguely remember some stupid rule about not being able to request a timeout after the throw in count reached a certain number. This was way before my time and might not even have existed. Maybe the guy thought that was still a rule.

MTD can gives a history lesson if such a rule did exist

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

After 80% of the count had expired. (I believe that was at the same time the 5 second count did not end until the ball was touched in bounds -- I don't know if both changed at the same time, but I believe both changed quite a long time ago.)

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Ah yes, Grasshopper, it was called a "Change of Status".

In the Ancient Days it was called and Imminent Change of Status and it applied to five and ten second counts. An Imminent Change of Status occured when 80% of the count had been reached. When and Imminent Change of Status had been reached a TO Request could not be granted.

I wouldn't call it a stupid rule but I guess (because I do not know the origin of the rule) that it was to award good defense, much like when the shot clock violation rule was changed from the FGA had to be released before the time limit had expired to the FGA had to be released before the time limit had expired such that the ball touched the basket ring.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. I am apologize for responding so late, but I had a S.O. basketball DH tonight.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

In the Ancient Days it was called and Imminent Change of Status and it applied to five and ten second counts. An Imminent Change of Status occured when 80% of the count had been reached. When and Imminent Change of Status had been reached a TO Request could not be granted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it also apply to a player who was jumping towards OOB with the ball? A TO could not be granted to because of the imminent change of status in that situation either.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Knights_Coach

I always thought refs granted the TO, then a tech ie Chris Webber Michigan. Growing up we were always taught, "don't call a TO if you are out, the ref 'will' give you a tech." It was never, he "might" give you a tech. I've been searching for this answer. Here goes the scenario:

During our overtime game. With seconds left in the game, it's tied 52-52, both teams were in the double bonus, the ball is dead, Team A(them) had the possession on the baseline trying to inbound ball & advance down the court. Team B(us) played full court press and almost got a 5 sec count, team A's inbounding player signaled timeout to the referee near him, who was right next to him. He never granted it, shook his head no. Team A inbounded it and it was tipped by Team B toward the half court line, Team A's possession there. I tried to ask the referee why didn't he get a tech because it was clear that he was requesting one. He then told me, he doesn't have to grant him one. All the while Team A drives to the hole and and gets fouled with 0.3 seconds left. Sinks 1, Team A commits a lane violation on the second. We didn't have any timeouts and w/ only 0.3 seconds we rolled the ball but didn't make the shot, end of ball game 52-53. We were the #8 seeded team vs the #1 seeded team.

NFHS 2014-15 Rule 5: Scoring and Timing Regulations, Section 11: Charged Time-Outs, Article 6 says: Time-outs in excess of the allotted number may be requested and shall be granted during regulation playing time or any extra period at the expense of a technical foul for each, as in 10-1-7.
PENALTY: (Section 1) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in. (Art. 7) Penalized when discovered.

He should have called it. I would have called it, most of us here would have called it.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Knights_Coach

All the while Team A drives to the hole and and gets fouled with 0.3 seconds left. Sinks 1, Team A commits a lane violation on the second. We didn't have any timeouts and w/ only 0.3 seconds we rolled the ball but didn't make the shot......

If this has already been mentioned I overlooked it, forgive me. In case you didn't know, with .3 seconds left, if you roll the ball on the floor, you completely eliminate the already miniscule chance to score that you might have had, since you can only score on a tip at this point.