Page 1 of 1
Is Pulling a WEBBER deserves a Technical?
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 7:38 am
by Rugged Ron Ron
When a player call a timeout with no timeouts left, it's a turnover plus a technical. I understand why it's a turnover but I dont see why they get a technical too. I think losing the posession is enough.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 7:47 am
by Toronto BC 07
The technical is for Stupidity.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 7:50 am
by cdubbz
yeah i agree. it should just be a turnover.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 8:12 am
by Patterns
cdubbz wrote:yeah i agree. it should just be a turnover.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 4:41 pm
by NetsForce
Toronto BC 07 wrote:The technical is for Stupidity.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 4:43 pm
by WEFFPIM
cdubbz wrote:yeah i agree. it should just be a turnover.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 4:49 pm
by corona
i think it should just be a technical and then you get the ball back.
that way it can be used strategically. so if you're down 1, and you can't get the ball inbounds...or you're doubled on the sideline with nowhere to go...you can call a timeout, give up 1 point...but get the ball back with another chance at scoring.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 4:51 pm
by Texas Longhorns
That is a great call in my opinion. If the player is not aware that his own team does not have any timeouts left, he should be penalized and I think that that free throw is a good way, plus the turnover and the ball back to the opposing team. That rule has been there for a while and it doesn't happen a lot because there a lot great basketball minds in the game today.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 5:16 pm
by celticfan42487
It's a turnover for holding the ball over 5 seconds.
It's a technical for delaying the game.
They also made it an automatic turnover so they can assume the player held onto the ball for more then 5 seconds and the team went into the normal time-out routine [therefore not inbounding the ball within 5 seconds]. So think of it as the time-out called that wasn't possible happened wether the other team did take the 20 or 60 seconds or not.
They went under the assumption that the time-out routine happened to prevent things like below from happening.
In possibly the greatest NBA game of all time, the Phoenix Suns found themselves in a nail biter against the Boston Celtics in the 1976 NBA Finals. With one second left on the clock in double overtime, the Suns were down one, had no time outs left and were eighty feet away from the basket. Instead of risking a "Hail Mary" buzzer beater, one their guards by name of Paul Westphal showed some creativity in the face of long odds. He intentionally called a time out they didn't have and sure enough the Celtics were awarded the free throw. They sank it but here's the catch. Since there was no change of possession, the Suns were awarded ball at mid-court rather than underneath their own basket. Now, one second in the NBA can seem like an eternity and sure enough, the Suns inbounded the ball and a player by the name of Garfield Heard buried an eighteen footer to send the game to triple overtime. The Celts probably would have been better off if they had intentionally missed the free throw as well since that would have burned up whatever time was left on the clock but this makes for a way better story.
Alas, there was no happy ending for the Phoenix Suns, they wound losing the game and the series but as a result of the intentional "T", the NBA made some rule changes the following year to prevent that from happening again should the circumstance arise.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 5:18 pm
by celticfan42487
corona wrote:i think it should just be a technical and then you get the ball back.
that way it can be used strategically. so if you're down 1, and you can't get the ball inbounds...or you're doubled on the sideline with nowhere to go...you can call a timeout, give up 1 point...but get the ball back with another chance at scoring.
I put up the 1976 NBA Finals exampe for you. The way they felt after that was he was able to gain an advantage from his team not having any timeouts. Where that should be only considered a disadvatage. [luckily for us it also means every NBA team doesn't use every time out they have before last second inbounds pass as a "safety net" in case they can't inbound the ball.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 5:36 pm
by Grey
corona wrote:i think it should just be a technical and then you get the ball back.
that way it can be used strategically. so if you're down 1, and you can't get the ball inbounds...or you're doubled on the sideline with nowhere to go...you can call a timeout, give up 1 point...but get the ball back with another chance at scoring.
That's the way it used to be. I remember a
game between the Hornets and Pistons in '95. With a couple of seconds left in a tied game, Kendall Gill called a timeout that the Hornets didn't have. Allan Houston missed the technical foul free-throw, then the Hornets got the ball back. Lucky for us, they didn't score and the Pistons won in overtime.
I remember Doug Collins made a big deal over that rule after the game, and it was eventually changed.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 5:47 pm
by snaquille oatmeal
I think Walley still had a couple of seconds left before he called the time out. he looked confused before he took the time out as in he didn't know what the play was.
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 9:01 pm
by Pats19andO
i hate wally
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 9:19 pm
by Abyss Impact
Pulling a Webber? I assume you mean Chris Webber? What did he do? I don't get your topic title...
Posted: Sat Feb 9, 2008 11:02 pm
by D-Wags#13
he called a timeout they didn't have back in his college days that eventually cost them the title, iirc