CA Open Championship (Boys)
 

Returning to the timeout issue I mentioned in the California state boys championship. I don't have video of the play. But from my recollection, Mater Dei missed a shot with about two seconds to go, ball was live, a Bishop player is calling for timeout. He doesn't have the ball. Clock runs out.
Again, in my opinion, the refs saw the TO request but ignored it. Or 2, they saw it but it didn't register in their mind to grant it. 3- They didn't see it.
Bishop O'Dowd did not have any timeouts left.
The game went into OT. It was a great game. It would not have been right to end the game on a T in that situation. If the refs had seen the player signal a TO, then I think they were 100% right to ignore it. It wasn't a controversial play and no one seemed to notice it. Perhaps the player and the refs were fortunate there wasn't more than a second or two on the clock because then I think the refs would have had to grant the TO request. Well-officiated game. A classic game to remember. In the Ohio game with the T on the dunk, that is a controversial call but you can't fault the ref for calling it. There was a showboat element to it. But here if a T is called it would not have been the right way to end the game.

Streak ends | state, monarchs, scored - Sports - OC Varsity

Here is one video I could find but not of the play in question. BTW, from here you can't really tell but on TV it appears there was a foul. There was a two minute delay or so to work out the time and which is why the first FT was airballed in my opinion. player was frozen at the line. Just added to the drama! btw, Mater Dei is an amazing team.

Mater Dei falls in OT to Bishop O'Dowd in Open Division title game - LA Times

If you want support for your opinion that officials should ignore a timeout request in this case, you'll have to go to a fan site. I'm sure they'll agree with you.

if you watched the game I think you'd have agreed with me.
Again, like I said, it was very quick from the TO request and the end of regulation. Maybe the refs didn't see it. IDK. But absolutely it was the right move to ignore the T if that was the case as it would have meant a Technical foul with maybe .5 seconds left or something.

It was a good game with a fitting end.

Jesus Christ mutant

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/wptes...2/facepalm.gif

Or maybe it had something to do Red #1 disconcerting the free thrower. IMO, that should have been called.

I saw that too. I think the rules committee really needs to look at that because I see it called so inconsistency and often ignored.
I often see a player raise his hands up really fast. Makes it seem like a rebounding issue but really it is to distract the FT shooter. I'd rather have it clearer and more examples on when to call it because it seems to be all over the place. The players really don't know either what crosses the line.

We had a discussion earlier about black and white, literal reading of the rules, etc. There is the correct call but there can also by the RIGHT call. The right call can mean passing on a foul that could have been called.
By rule could the refs have called a T? Yes, they could have. But if you had watched the game as I did(and Nevada too I think) you would realize it would have gone against the spirit of the game. It would not have been the right way to end the game. I think Nevada(note-I may be wrong) was more in favor of the literal interpretation, by myself and others, thought you don't always call the game by the book. There are times when you don't call hand-checks and minor fouls.

I'm stunned to see the linked article was written by a member of a legitimate media outlet. This excerpt you posted sounded like it was written by, at best, a high school student (if not a child), so I had to look.

But I guess that's in keeping with the writing style/officiating mindset of most of your posts.

For the record, I believe in calling the game by the rules as written. That is the right way to officiate.

did you watch that game Nevada? I missed the first half but saw the second. I saw most of the previous game, the St Mary's one.
Listen, this may be a moot issue. Maybe the refs didn't see it, or maybe they saw it and thought but the time they granted it time would have run-out.
I'm just saying I'm glad it wasn't called.
I'll post a video when I can. It was on tv here statewide.

I did not see the end of the game. Had some other things going on.
What surprised me about the girls Open contest was that the CIF assigned a crew from the St. Mary's section to officiate it.

in the St Mary's game I thought there were a couple of strange calls and if anything they seemed to favor Mater Dei but I thought the officiating was good.
I was so impressed with Mater Dei's star player. Sorry, I don't know her name. The guard, dark haired girl. Crazy skill.

oh here she is. ha. She is going to LMU.
Divine sisterhood at No. 1 Mater Del -espnW

Grant, And Then Charge ...
 

No. You're skipping a step. First, the official should have granted the timeout. There is no provision in the rulebook, casebook, or the mechanics manual, for an official to ignore a legal request for timeout out just because the official knows that the team has used their last timeout.

Second, after the official scorekeeper confirms that the team has used an excess timeout, the technical foul is charged, but only after the timeout is granted, and used.

You know, there was this college game a few years back where this guy named Chris Weber was playing with these other 4 really good players from Michigan, and wouldn't you know it, he tried to call a timeout thingy when they didn't have any timeout thingys left.

Good thing for him the refs just chose to ignore his request, cause it was just too good of a game to end with...wait. What? The refs did give him the timeout? And called a T??????

Why those dirty basturds. I bet they got run out of town and never worked another big college game in their...what??? They did???

Never mind.

I'm Gonna Get Legal On This Right Away ...
 

Hey. That's my schtick.

Note: Well done rockyroad.