I think this is the rule(?)

Once the ball is handed to inbounder, only he (or the team now considered to be on offense) can call a t.o. (?)

I don't ever recall seeing in a game situation, the now defensive team able to call a t.o. once the inbounder has it and is looking for a player to pass to or is running the baseline (when allowed) looking to pass in.

Correct me if I am on the wrong track here.



NOTE: This post does not address or "take sides" in the topic of retaining or not retaining the current coaching staff of any sport at Vanderbilt University or at any other school or entity, collegiate or professional.

I believe that's correct. The following quote is not from an official hoops site, but I see no reason to doubt its accuracy:

"...Players and coaches may only call timeouts when the ball is dead, or when the ball is live and their team has sole possession. For example, a coach or player may call a timeout after making a basket, since the ball is dead, but not after the opposing team has picked up the ball for the ensuing in-bounds play, since the ball then has become live..."

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/arti.../#ixzz2IB4dfqWH

I don't know the rule here, but I would've guessed that when the game clock stops after a made basket in the last minute the ball's considered "dead" until inbounded. But who would've thought we'd need a TO after making what should've been a game-ender?!? (It looked like the ball was on the way in before the TO was asked for, anyway.). I congratulate Ole Miss for making it, just wish any other player but that donkey's a$$ had made it, if it had to be.

Reversespinshot wrote: ...I congratulate Ole Miss for making it, just wish any other player but that donkey's a$$ had made it, if it had to be.

Really. I used the half-second before he got the shot off to tell my wife, Not him!--he can make that!

I haven't looked up the rule, and I'm certainly no Stallings apologist.  However, given that a timeout can always be called after a made basket, the rule could only be that a timeout can be called until the ball is inbounded.  I really think there was confusion on the part of the official because when the ball is inbounded after a dead ball, once the inbounder has the ball, it is live (and thus a timeout can't be called).  That said, after a made basket, the ball is never really "dead", so a timeout shoud be able to be called even when the inbounder has the ball.  The ref doesn't typically hand the ball to the inbounder after a made basket, so I think the ref made a mistake in this particular situation due to a somewhat atypical situation.

I further think that Stallings knew he had a timeout but wanted to confirm given that the most likely way to lose in regulation was to get a "T".  He thought he had plenty of time to do so, and in my opinion, called the timeout in plenty of time (if my above assumptions are true).

Goheenaholic wrote: I haven't looked up the rule, and I'm certainly no Stallings apologist.  However, given that a timeout can always be called after a made basket, the rule could only be that a timeout can be called until the ball is inbounded.  I really think there was confusion on the part of the official because when the ball is inbounded after a dead ball, once the inbounder has the ball, it is live (and thus a timeout can't be called).  That said, after a made basket, the ball is never really "dead", so a timeout shoud be able to be called even when the inbounder has the ball.  The ref doesn't typically hand the ball to the inbounder after a made basket, so I think the ref made a mistake in this particular situation due to a somewhat atypical situation.

I further think that Stallings knew he had a timeout but wanted to confirm given that the most likely way to lose in regulation was to get a "T".  He thought he had plenty of time to do so, and in my opinion, called the timeout in plenty of time (if my above assumptions are true).

Where did you find that, because I can never recall seeing a TO granted to the now defensive team once the ball is handed to the inbounder on any level from h.s. to the NBA.


NOTE: This post does not address or "take sides" in the topic of retaining or not retaining the current coaching staff of any sport at Vanderbilt University or at any other school or entity, collegiate or professional.

bhoyal wrote:

Goheenaholic wrote: I haven't looked up the rule, and I'm certainly no Stallings apologist.  However, given that a timeout can always be called after a made basket, the rule could only be that a timeout can be called until the ball is inbounded.  I really think there was confusion on the part of the official because when the ball is inbounded after a dead ball, once the inbounder has the ball, it is live (and thus a timeout can't be called).  That said, after a made basket, the ball is never really "dead", so a timeout shoud be able to be called even when the inbounder has the ball.  The ref doesn't typically hand the ball to the inbounder after a made basket, so I think the ref made a mistake in this particular situation due to a somewhat atypical situation.

I further think that Stallings knew he had a timeout but wanted to confirm given that the most likely way to lose in regulation was to get a "T".  He thought he had plenty of time to do so, and in my opinion, called the timeout in plenty of time (if my above assumptions are true).

Where did you find that, because I can never recall seeing a TO granted to the now defensive team once the ball is handed to the inbounder on any level from h.s. to the NBA.


NOTE: This post does not address or "take sides" in the topic of retaining or not retaining the current coaching staff of any sport at Vanderbilt University or at any other school or entity, collegiate or professional.

Vanderbilt had just made a basket; therefore, the ball was dead. I'd estimate that wherther a guy is running the baseline or not, the ball is not deemed to be "live" again until it is thrown inbounds.

I see it as another crock of manure that helped us to lose a game. I bet if UK were in Rupp and called one during the same scenario, they would have gotten it, wouldn't they?

I'd bet my buttcheek with the most pimples on it that they would have.

I think my point is that the ball is typically not handed to the inbounder after a made basket.

Go back and look at the replay again.  Stallings doesn't ask for the timeout until the ball has already been thrown in.  just because a coach asks for a timeout doesn't mean the official has to grant the timeout.  The official might not have heard him or seen the signal in time.

Goheenaholic wrote:   He thought he had plenty of time to do so, and in my opinion, called the timeout in plenty of time (if my above assumptions are true).

I haven't taken a look at the replay again, but in watching live (and the replays that followed during the live broadcast), I thought Stallings began asking for the timeout right as the ball was being delivered to the inbounder.

I did some quick research that proves my original assumptions wrong to a certain degree.  Basically, after a made basket, a timeout can be called until the inbounding team has the ball "at their disposal" to inbound the ball.  I saw some interpretations that state that basically "at their disposal" usually means when the ref would have normally begun their 5 second count (inbounder standing out of bounds with the ball, facing the court of play).

I still think the timeout was called in time (without having seen the replay, and I normally wear gold-tinted glasses), but I will retract my statement that Stallings probably thought he had plenty of time to make the timeout call.  He clearly would know the rule, and based upon the rule, timeouts have to be called very quickly after made baskets in typical scenarios.

I  went back and rewatched the replay of the replay.

Here it is.

If you go to the 1:57:21 mark, you will see that the ball got away and the ref picks it up and underhand flips it to Ole Miss.  At the same time, Stallings tries to get the timeout.  I don't think the ref sees it until after the Ole Miss guy throws it in.

The ref SHOULD have granted the timeout, even if it was a half-second late.

I took a snapshot of it but I don't know how to post a picture.

Vandy1Fan wrote:

It appears that the ball has already reached the player inbounds while the inbounder is already crossing the endline to sprint upcourt when coach pleads for the TO.  I'm not taking sides on this, but it looks from this one particular angle that he was pleading too late.

NOTE: This post does not address or "take sides" in the topic of retaining or not retaining the current coaching staff of any sport at Vanderbilt University or at any other school or entity, collegiate or professional.

maybe someone has explained it and maybe it's a stupid question, but why would we not defend the inbounds pass after hitting the "game winner"?  watching the replay, it is obvious that stallings' instinct was to call a to, but a very brief pause to verify we had one was all it took to lose control of the situation.

DocDore wrote: maybe someone has explained it and maybe it's a stupid question, but why would we not defend the inbounds pass after hitting the "game winner"?  watching the replay, it is obvious that stallings' instinct was to call a to, but a very brief pause to verify we had one was all it took to lose control of the situation.

Guarding the inbounds passer gives you four on four; not guarding the passer gives you five on four.

He said that after we made the three, Kevin looked down the bench and made some kind of hand gesture as to ascertain whether or not we had a timeout left, and once he found out that we did, the ball had already been passed inbounds.

Clearly this in an inexcusable gaffe on Kevin's part; I mean, come on-- the head coach is supposed to know how many to's he has left, especially near the end of the game in a nailbiter.

Here's what should have happened: As soon as we hit the shot, a to should have been called immediately, and then we should have fouled Ole Miss. That's how I see it.

Oh well; that sucks, but we move on.

Are you serious.  Did you not watch the game last night?

How many times did you see Ole Miss miss a free throw and get the rebound and put it in last night.

I just wish the defense would have been better at the end.

With 3+ seconds to go I will always let them shot a three unless I have good rebounding team than I might foul depending on who the shooter is.

twyman wrote: Are you serious.  Did you not watch the game last night?

How many times did you see Ole Miss miss a free throw and get the rebound and put it in last night.

I just wish the defense would have been better at the end.

With 3+ seconds to go I will always let them shot a three unless I have good rebounding team than I might foul depending on who the shooter is.

the scenario as my dad laid it out for me. Some people here just refuse to read.

And, sorry, but I disagree with you on your philosophy about what to do when you're up by 3 with 3 or 4 seconds left. This is personal opinion, but I'm a proponent of fouling in that situation.

Why? Because a good three-point shooter is more likely to tie the game up if you choose not to foul him. You must admit that a made three at the end to tie the game is MUCH more common than a guy missing the first toss after you foul him and then either him or one of his teammates getting a board and putting one back in.

There's really no definitive right or wrong answer here; but I say foul the man and make him hit one at then line, and then he has to try and miss one on purpose to attempt to get it back, and then they still have to put one in.

That is not easy to do. Really, it's semi-rare compared to making a three to tie or win.

Ole Miss may have gotten a couple of putbacks off of missed free throws a couple of times during the game, but it's a lot harder to execute the old "make the first one then miss the second one on purpose then get a rebound and put one back in" when the pressure is on and the game in on the line.

a defender in the inbounder's face makes it much more likely he screws up--especially in a high-pressure end-of-game situation.

bek7567 wrote: ...You must admit that a made three at the end to tie the game is MUCH more common than a guy missing the first toss after you foul him and then either him or one of his teammates getting a board and putting one back in...

I'll admit that that represents the overall statistical percentages. But I'm highly dubious that it represents the percentages in that specific game. OM had not shot well on their three pointers, but they had gotten three offensive rebounds on their FTs earlier in the game. I bet you that's a higher percentage of their missed free throws than the percentage of treys they made.

And if we kept Henderson from getting the shot, which was the obvious plan, but failed, then the odds are even greater in favor of not fouling.

It's not the slam dunk decision you make it out to be.