Time out

BktBallRef

RookieDude wrote
If you saw the held ball but, hadn't blown the whistle for the held ball...and at approx. the same time the HC requests a TO...are you saying you would grant the TO just because you have not blown the whistle for a held ball?:confused:

No, I'll blow whichever came first.

Camron Rust wrote
The word player is implied in the reference to "two opponents".

Implied. LOL! 😀

You play is ambiguous. No one can know that the call should be with the information given. It appears that you may be saying the ball is not yet held, so a timeout would be correct. But, I can't tell what the sequence of events is from what you posted.

Not sure why, Snaq and Rookiedude didn't have any trouble with the sequence. A whistle for a TO and a second later, a whistle for a held ball. Very clear.

It seems that basic common sense is all you need to know that a player doesn't have player control of a ball held by another player.

Even if it's contrary to the rules, right? 🙄

Have fun, I'm done, we just won't agree on this one. But officials everywhere will continue to grant the timeout if that whistle comes first.

Jurassic Referee

BktBallRef wrote
Have fun, I'm done, we just won't agree on this one. But officials everywhere will continue to grant the timeout if that request comes first.

If you replace "whistle" above with "request", does that simplify it so everybody should agree? If a legal TO request is made before the held ball is called, there is NO justification under the rules NOT to grant that TO request,

BktBallRef

Jurassic Referee wrote
If you replace "whistle" above with "request", does that simplify it so everybody should agree? If a legal TO request is made before the held ball is called, there is NO justification under the rules NOT to grant that TO request,

No idea...I've tried to make it as simple as possible from the get-go. 😛

I'll leave it to you. 🙂

bob jenkins

Jurassic Referee wrote
If you replace "whistle" above with "request", does that simplify it so everybody should agree? If a legal TO request is made before the held ball is called, there is NO justification under the rules NOT to grant that TO request,

I'll go with "if a legal TO request is made before the held ball is observed (or recognized, or whatever) by the official there is no justigfication not to grant the TO request."

The point being that there might be a delay between the official seeing the held ball and getting the whistle blown.

And, just having B's hands on the ball is not a held ball. It's not held until the official judges it to be so.

Jurassic Referee

bob jenkins wrote
I'll go with "if a legal TO request is made before the held ball is observed (or recognized, or whatever) by the official there is no justification not to grant the TO request."

The point being that there might be a delay between the official seeing the held ball and getting the whistle blown.

And, just having B's hands on the ball is not a held ball. It's not held until the official judges it to be so.

That works well also by rule. And it's basically all that Tony was saying.

It's the same delay between the official hearing the TO request and then blowing the whistle to grant the TO request as recognizing the held ball and then blowing the whistle to call that held ball.

If there's a problem, the officials have to get together and decide who recognized what first----> the TO request or the held ball.

Camron Rust

BktBallRef wrote
Again, how are you going to rule on this play.

PLAY
A1 has the ball and B1 attempts to grab it. Obviously, there's going to be a held ball. The trail blows the whistle as Coach A has requested a timeout. A second later, the lead blows his whistle for a held ball.
Are you honestly going to tell me that you're going to ignore the first whistle and go with the second whistle?

Camron Rust wrote
You play is ambiguous. No one can know that the call should be with the information given. It appears that you may be saying the ball is not yet held, so a timeout would be correct. But, I can't tell what the sequence of events is from what you posted.

BktBallRef wrote
Not sure why, Snaq and Rookiedude didn't have any trouble with the sequence. A whistle for a TO and a second later, a whistle for a held ball. Very clear.

Your play only says that their is GOING to be a held ball when the first whistle for a TO is blown. It sounds like that someone is anticipating the play, not describing what has occurred. Seeing that a held ball is about to occur is irrelevant. We you saying that there actually was a held ball and the official just blew the whistle really late, after the timeout whistle, or was there not really a held ball yet until after the timeout whistle. The instant that matters is the one where the defender grabs the ball, not where you anticipate a held ball.

Camron Rust

Camron Rust wrote
It seems that basic common sense is all you need to know that a player doesn't have player control of a ball held by another player.

BktBallRef wrote
Even if it's contrary to the rules, right? 🙄

You mean the rule that says if a player is holding the ball, they have player control? Doesn't that apply to any player on the court? Even a defender? How can you call time out if a player of the other team has player control? 😕

BktBallRef

Camron Rust wrote
You mean the rule that says if a player is holding the ball, they have player control?

Yes, which is why we grant the timeout to A1, because he has player control. Works against your argument.

Doesn't that apply to any player on the court? Even a defender?

A defender can't have player control, as by definition, a defender is on the team that does not have the ball. Further, there's no such thing as dual player control, as you attempted to claim earlier in the thread.

How can you call time out if a player of the other team has player control? :confused:

You can't. But you can grant a timeout to Coach A since A1 has player control until the held ball is whistled.

Hope that clears that up for you.

Camron Rust wrote
Your play only says that their is GOING to be a held ball when the first whistle for a TO is blown. It sounds like that someone is anticipating the play, not describing what has occurred. Seeing that a held ball is about to occur is irrelevant. We you saying that there actually was a held ball and the official just blew the whistle really late, after the timeout whistle, or was there not really a held ball yet until after the timeout whistle. The instant that matters is the one where the defender grabs the ball, not where you anticipate a held ball.

You don't have to be Einstein to understand that one official whistles a timeout a split second before the second official whistles a held ball.

My question to you is are you going to go with the timeout or the held ball?

It's a real SIMPLE question. But I understand why you're playing dumb. You don't want to answer my play because it will prove my point.

Thanks, I have your answer. 🙂

BktBallRef

Jurassic Referee wrote
That works well also by rule. And it's basically all that Tony was saying.

It's the same delay between the official hearing the TO request and then blowing the whistle to grant the TO request as recognizing the held ball and then blowing the whistle to call that held ball.

If there's a problem, the officials have to get together and decide who recognized what first----> the TO request or the held ball.

But for some reason, Cam refuses to see it.

Jurassic Referee

Camron Rust wrote
The instant that matters is the one where the defender grabs the ball, not where you anticipate a held ball.

The instance that really matters is what came first...the TO request or the held ball. That's the decision the officials have to jointly make. In both cases the actual whistle is irrelevant.

The play isn't really different than a player in the air making a TO request before he lands OOB. YOU have to decide if the TO request was made before the player landed OOB. In the situation being discussed, just replace "landed OOB" with a "held ball". You call 'em both the same way.

Camron Rust

BktBallRef wrote
Yes, which is why we grant the timeout to A1, because he has player control. Works against your argument.

A defender can't have player control, as by definition, a defender is on the team that does not have the ball. Further, there's no such thing as dual player control, as you attempted to claim earlier in the thread.

You can't. But you can grant a timeout to Coach A since A1 has player control until the held ball is whistled.

What is the definition of player control? It simply says that a player who is holding a live ball inbound has player control. Is there any reference to defense/offense? No, the rule that defines player control applies equally to every player on the court. Player control establishes who is on offense/defense, not the other way around.

If BOTH A1 and B1 have their hands on the ball in a similar manner, by definition, you have two choices. They either both have player control or neither does. If you say that A1 has PC, then you're also saying B1 has PC. If you're saying B1 doesn't have PC, you're saying that A1 doesn't have PC. The definition of player control doesn't support any other set of options.

Then you add the held ball rule which establishes that neither player has control when they both have their hands on the ball.

So, no one can call timeout once both players have their hands on the ball....neither has player control. Player control and being in control of the ball are synonymous.

If the timeout request comes BEFORE team B gets their hands on the ball...timeout. That is simple...the order of the whistles doesn't matter. Your play implies it does and your play doesn't indicate WHEN team B actually got their hands on the ball relative to the timeout request. The officials have to figure out which occurred first, not who blew thier whistle the quickest.

« Previous Page