TO request when you have no timeouts

[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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Altor

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.

Imminent Change of Status never applied to the above situation in red. But the NCAA Men's and Women's Committees adopted a rule about ten years ago that a TO Request could not be granted if a player in control of the ball was headed out-of-bounds. And the stupid reason for the rule change was because supposedly players had already landed out-of-bounds before making the TO Request. So instead of telling officials to do a better job of making out-of-bounds calls they adopted a rule that doesn't allow a team to burn a TO to keep possession of the ball.

MTD, Sr.