TO but shot clock shows 24

[luvhoops]

NCAA Mens

In backcourt, Trail is officiating heavily guarded/pressured ball handler A1. Team A coach requests a timeout. Trail official acknowledges/grants timeout called and stops the clock. Officials look at shot clock which reads 24. Center official claims that the shot clock had started 2 seconds early, although he did not rectify it when it actually happened. No official had any direct knowledge (count in head, etc) of actual elapsed time. No monitor or other help from anywhere/anyone.

Would you grant the timeout and leave the shot clock at 24?

Would you grant the timeout and put the shot clock at 26?

Would you call the 10-second violation, give the ball to Team B, but still grant the timeout?

Would you call the 10-second violation, give the ball to Team B, and not grant the timeout?

Would you do something else?

With answers, please provide a brief explanation.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by luvhoops

NCAA Mens

In backcourt, Trail is officiating heavily guarded/pressured ball handler A1. Team A coach requests a timeout. Trail official acknowledges/grants timeout called and stops the clock. Officials look at shot clock which reads 24. Center official claims that the shot clock had started 2 seconds early, although he did not rectify it when it actually happened. No official had any direct knowledge (count in head, etc) of actual elapsed time. No monitor or other help from anywhere/anyone.

Would you grant the timeout and leave the shot clock at 24?

Would you grant the timeout and put the shot clock at 26?

Would you call the 10-second violation, give the ball to Team B, but still grant the timeout?

Would you call the 10-second violation, give the ball to Team B, and not grant the timeout?

Would you do something else?

With answers, please provide a brief explanation.

Because of what is in red the answer is to grant the TO and reset the shot clock to 26. During the time-out you kick the Center in the backside and tell him to fix clock errors when he sees them, unless a scoring play is in progress.

Originally Posted by luvhoops

With answers, please provide a brief explanation.

What is this, a test? Feels like I'm back in grade school.

[crosscountry55]

With the new mechanic for using the shot clock vice a visible count, this actually makes a great case play. The NCAA should adopt it.

So what if the official doesn't have knowledge of a lapse. TO is called, you look up and see "24." Do you call the violation and give the coach the option to take the timeout back?

Probably not. I'm guessing not calling the violation is simply a non-reviewable official's error?

In the NBA the count is not reset following a timeout, correct? Or is this moot because the ball is advanced to the division line? I stink at NBA rules.

[luvhoops]

Originally Posted by AremRed

What is this, a test? Feels like I'm back in grade school.

Sorry, I did that to prevent some people from only responding with a yes or no. I was looking also for rule/case reference.

[luvhoops]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Because of what is in red the answer is to grant the TO and reset the shot clock to 26. During the time-out you kick the Center in the backside and tell him to fix clock errors when he sees them, unless a scoring play is in progress.

Yes, now pretend the information in red is absent. No official had any direct knowledge of any timing errors/issues. What is the best way to handle this situation?

(I also agree it would make a great NCAA play for case book)

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

In the NBA the count is not reset following a timeout, correct? Or is this moot because the ball is advanced to the division line? I stink at NBA rules.

NBA does not reset the 8 second count.

I believe the NBA only advances for a TO called (1) before the ball is inbounded after a basket, or (2) called immediately upon gaining possession in the backcourt [most commonly on a FT rebound at end game].

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

With the new mechanic for using the shot clock vice a visible count, this actually makes a great case play. The NCAA should adopt it.

So what if the official doesn't have knowledge of a lapse. TO is called, you look up and see "24." Do you call the violation and give the coach the option to take the timeout back?

Probably not. I'm guessing not calling the violation is simply a non-reviewable official's error?

In the NBA the count is not reset following a timeout, correct? Or is this moot because the ball is advanced to the division line? I stink at NBA rules.

I think it is a case play (or interp) in NCAAW. Either the TO request came in time, so reset the shot clock to 21, or it's late and a violation. Must be decided immediately.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

What is this, a test? Feels like I'm back in grade school.

It's actually a great situational question.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by crosscountry55

With the new mechanic for using the shot clock vice a visible count, this actually makes a great case play. The NCAA should adopt it.

So what if the official doesn't have knowledge of a lapse. TO is called, you look up and see "24." Do you call the violation and give the coach the option to take the timeout back?

Probably not. I'm guessing not calling the violation is simply a non-reviewable official's error?
....

Without the information provided by the slot, by rule a 10 second violation would be called, 1 second added back to the game clock, and Team A would have a choice to rescind the timeout.

And there is a relevant case play on the Men's side, A.R. 208.

Originally Posted by luvhoops

Sorry, I did that to prevent some people from only responding with a yes or no. I was looking also for rule/case reference.

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

It's actually a great situational question.

I know, I was just ragging on luvhoops for the very official sounding post. It is a very good situational question.

[luvhoops]

Yes, A.R. 208 applies somewhat however 207 is more applicable I believe. Thanks for pointing it out as clearly, it was not previously discovered and thus, the original post was made.