Requesting timeout on layup situation???

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

First. They're two different situations, apples and oranges, one is a timeout called by a coach that has to be verified, possibly taking the official's vision off the player for a second, and the other is a timeout called by player right in front to me.



Second: While the coach may question my release call there's no way that he has to rules knowledge to compare it to my airborne player call.



Third: Coaches, fans, players, and most officials (only one exception on the planet) really don't break down the dead ball rule for an airborne player. They just know that it's allowed in high school basketball, and has been called that way since the Mayans were kicking the heads of their decapitated enemies through stone rings.



Fourth. Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we're taught and expected to verify that the ball is still in player control after verifying that the request is being made by the head coach, before we grant any such timeout and sound our whistle. Been doing it that way since 1998, well before the 2016-17 NFHS Basketball Points of Emphasis. After I verify it's the head coach, I then observe that the player has released the ball and I will not grant a time out, nor will I sound my whistle, because there is no player control during a try. Ignore the request. Play on.



So unless I screw up, the question for me is moot.



And if a screw up, I will admit to the coaches that I screwed up and my partner and I will figure out how to get out to the mess that I caused in a fair manner, maybe using black and white rules, or maybe using purpose and intent of those rules.

Quit making the coaches ignorant of the rules to avoid answering the question. But I'll play your game.

I just moved to Connecticut and I'm the coach. In the shooting situation, the request comes from a player who is in your visual field along with the shooter. What rules justification do you have to deny the time out in one situation and grant it in the other?

You gave a lecture about whistles making the ball dead in the shooting situation then say you ignore that principle in the OOB situation. Then you justify it not by the rule book, but by saying coaches are too stupid to figure out your contradiction.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

What rules justification do you have to deny the time out in one situation and grant it in the other? You gave a lecture about whistles making the ball dead in the shooting situation then say you ignore that principle in the OOB situation.

Absolutely none, although the "release" situation would seldom happen to me because we "double verify" here in my area, and have been for twenty years.

I don't grant timeouts while a try is airborne. In this thread I was answering ("lecturing") for officials who might, as for an answer on a written exam. After research, I was actually surprised to discover that "granting a timeout" was not listed as one ways that the ball becomes dead, and that it's the whistle, not the granting, that makes the ball dead. I really did not expect to discover that.

There are dead balls that occur before a whistle is sounded, but a time out being granted (surprisingly to me) is not one of them.

If I were to ever grant during a released try in a real game, I would be wrong and I would have to deal with it like any other mistake. I have yet to work a perfect game.

I do grant timeouts to players flying out of bounds. No rule basis. No casebook basis. In thirty-eight years of officiating, working games, and observing an equal number of games, I have yet to see a single official deny such a request. Players, fans, coaches, my assigner, evaluators, and partners, all expect me to grant that request.

I don't sound my whistle when a free throw shooter has the ball for eleven seconds either. No rule basis. No casebook basis. I just don't because that's not the way we do things around here. And please don't ask me at what point I would sound my whistle, I have never reached that elusive number, not yet, but I know that if I ever get that far, I will sound my whistle using purpose and intent.

My assigner, my evaluators, and my partners, expect me to do things in certain ways. Sometimes 100% by the book, sometimes not quite by the book. Don't ask for a written list, there's not one, it's part of our culture and is learned through observation and experience.

Coaches, players, and fans in my area have also come to expect officials to do things in certain ways. Sometimes 100% by the book, sometimes not quite by the book, it's part of our basketball culture here in my local area.

As a young varsity official, I once called a punched ball violation when no other player was anywhere near the puncher. 100% by the book. Before the end of the tournament, my partner, and the more experienced guys who followed us, made it very known to me that I shouldn't do that again, and I haven't.

I don't believe that one can officiate well by going by the book 100%. I also don't think that one can officiate well not knowing the written rules and interpretations. In medio stat virtus (Horace).

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

In the shooting situation, the request comes from a player who is in your visual field along with the shooter. What rules justification do you have to deny the time out in one situation ...

Both in my visual field?

Shooter still has player control? Grant the timeout.

Shooter has released the shot? Deny the timeout request, play on.

Shooter is in the act of shooting but hasn't released the shot? Grant the timeout.

These are easy to explain to any coach or assigner.

Now the airborne player flying out of bounds is another story. Grant the timeout, no rules basis, no casebook basis, easy to explain to my assigner, impossible to explain to a very intelligent coach who just moved to Connecticut (see above post). Calling this won't lower any evaluation, and won't get me taken off the varsity list (I've already taken myself off the varsity list due to a chronic orthopedic problem). It may cost me one state tournament vote by the new coach, but I can live with that, and I won't lose any sleep over it (I only worked one varsity game this year, so I doubt that I'm getting more than two votes, if that, anyway).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Both in my visual field?



Shooter still has player control? Grant the timeout.



Shooter has released the shot? Deny the timeout request, play on.



Shooter is in the act of shooting but hasn't released the shot? Grant the timeout, no continuation here.



These are easy to explain to any coach or assigner.



Now the airborne player flying out of bounds is another story. Grant the timeout, no rules basis, no casebook basis, easy to explain to my assigner, impossible to explain to a very intelligent coach who just moved to Connecticut (see above post). Calling this won't lower any evaluation, and won't get me taken off the varsity list (I've already taken myself off the varsity list due to a chronic orthopedic problem). It may cost me one state tournament vote by the new coach, but I can live with that, and I won't lose any sleep over it (I only worked one varsity game this year, so I doubt that I'm getting more than two votes, if that, anyway).

The only time I would have to explain anything to any of my supervisors is if I fail to grant a time out because the whistle came after the shot was released or after the throw-in was released.

Every supervisor I've worked for expects us to grant the timeout based on the status of the ball when we recognized the time-out was being requested.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Every supervisor I've worked for expects us to grant the timeout based on the status of the ball when we recognized the time-out was being requested.

Sounds like a good plan for you guys because it appears that you guys don't "double verify". And that's fine because the Point of Emphasis in 2016-17 is unclear in regard to such a "double verification".

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we're taught and expected to verify that the ball is still in player control after verifying that the request is being made by the head coach before we grant any such timeout and sound our whistle. Been doing it that way since 1998.

When in Rome ...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we're taught and expected to verify that the ball is still in player control after verifying that the request is being made by the head coach before we grant any such timeout and sound our whistle. Been doing it that way since 1998.

5-8-3-A: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official: Grants and signals a player’s/head coach’s oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when: The ball is at the disposal or in control of a player of his/her team.

The actual rule seems more clear than the more recent, less clear, Point of Emphasis that may have muddied the water by using "may" instead of "shall".

2016-17 NFHS Basketball Points of Emphasis
Acknowledging and Granting Timeout criteria. Granting a time-out is an aspect of the game allowed by rule where knowledge of ball position, player control and dead/live ball criteria can all be factors in awarding the requested timeout. Consideration has been given regarding continuing the opportunity for a head coach to call a time-out. The committee wanted to maintain the current time-out criteria. When a ball is live, player control is required. A player or the head coach of the team in possession may request and be granted a time-out. When the ball is dead, the crew must maintain its coverage areas on the court but also be aware of the opportunity for a head coach to request a time-out. This request can be oral or visual, but must be verified by the ruling official. If the request meets criteria, a time-out should be granted.

Verify or double verify? When in Rome ...

(Man, the title of this post would make a great signature, reminds me of the motto of our local, family owned trash company, "Serving Our Customers Since 1937". But I kind of like the one I'm currently using, it's tattooed on my left upper arm, and kind of important to me, and I like to share (not preach, just share). I'm a member of my church's prison ministry and my tattoos pale in comparison to tattoos of the inmates. In prison, I lose every single tattoo contest.)

[billyu2]

[QUOTE=Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.;1029338]BillyU:

I am sorry for just now answering your question. I am not trying to evade your question. The game was between two Class D schools (very small schools and there was only one game clock and naturally it was on the ball behind me and directly above me. We could not put time back on the clock because we did not have definite knowledge. But the time it took for my partner to turn his head away from the Court to see who was requesting the TO was very short but still long enough for Visitor's PG to release the 3-Point FGA. And how could a NE Ohio Boy doubt another NE Ohio Boy?

Exactly. My apologies!
The intent of my question was, if play is ruled “retroactively dead” at the time of the request, shouldn’t the clock have been stopped as well? Obviously the timer cannot be expected to do so. However, it would be incumbent upon the official to first check the clock before verifying a head coach’s request before granting the time out so that the proper time can be put back on the clock. I think I would be correct in saying officials have never been instructed to do that likely because the concept of a "retroactive" dead ball is not supported by rule.

PS. Back in 2009 I worked a Boys State Regional at BGSU. Columbus DeSales and perhaps Perrysberg? Anyway, after the game an official and his son came up to our locker room to introduce themselves and congratulate us on the game. My guess is that it was you. Have always wanted to ask.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I re-read 2016-17 NFHS Basketball POE Item (1) this morning and found what I believe are four relative sentences to our debate. I know that I have already made one long comment in this Thread but since this Thread has gone into multi-OT, why not keep this party going. So please be patient with me as everyone knows I love the sound of my voice.

I am not going to do any multi-quotes but will give the Page and Comment numbers and the Date and Time that it was posted of any Comment that I believe are relevant (footnotes so to speak). The relevant multi-quotes are:

I) The Original Comment that started this party was by Shane O, which is on Page 1, Comment #1, on Fri., Jan. 18, 2019, at 10:002amEST.

II) I added my first two cents on Page 2, Comment #19, Fri., Jan. 18, 2019, at 06:53pmEST.

III) My fellow NE Ohioan, BillyU, then commented on my Comment #19, on Page 2, Comment #25, Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 11:21amEST.

IV) My good friend and fellow IAABO member, BillyMac, on Page 2, Comment #27, Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 12:44pmEST, posted 2016-17 NFHS Basketball POE Item (1), which I will post, again, later in my Comment.

V) Camron Rust, made that same point that my Comment #19 made in his Comment #28, on Page 2, Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 01:09pmEST.

VI) BillyU replied to Camron's Comment #28 with Comment #29, on Page 2, on Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 02:16pmEST.

VII) BillyU's Comment #29 prompted So Cal Lurker's Comment #30, on Page 2, on Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 03:34pmEST.

VIII) I then posted one of my numerous opus magnus. See Comment #35, on Page 3, Tue., Jan. 22, Jan. 22, 2019, 01:54pmEST. This Comment also included Side Note 1 regarding my experience with HCs requesting TOs.

IX) My Comment #35 prompted BillyU to give us three very good Situations to consider in his Comment #36, on Page 3, Wed., Jan. 23, 2019, at 01:11pmEST.

X) And BillyU's Comment #36 prompted my Comment #42, on Page 3, Wed., Jan. 23, 2019, at 05:30pmEST.

XI) At this point BillyMac made a series of Comments defending the position that, while the A-HC's TO request was made while A1 had PC, if during the verification process before the Official can sound his whistle to grant A-HC's TO request, A1 loses PC (including a) Team A still has TC, or b) B1 gains PC), A-HC's request cannot be granted. BillyMac's position is the reason for my long comment today.

XII) And then yesterday, Fri., Jan. 25, 2019, at 07:27pm, I posted Comment #72.

Which, once again, brings us to 2016-17 NFHS Basketball POE Item (1):

1. Acknowledging and Granting Timeout criteria. Granting a time-out is an aspect of the game allowed by rule where knowledge of ball position, player control and dead/live ball criteria can all be factors in awarding the requested timeout. Consideration has been given regarding continuing the opportunity for a head coach to call a time-out. The committee wanted to maintain the current time-out criteria. When a ball is live, player control is required. A player or the head coach of the team in possession may request and be granted a time-out. When the ball is dead, the crew must maintain its coverage areas on the court but also be aware of the opportunity for a head coach to request a time-out. This request can be oral or visual, but must be verified by the ruling official. If the request meets criteria, a time-out should be granted.

I have highlighted in red four sentences in Item (1) that are relevant to our discussion: Live Ball TO Requests.

Sentence 1: When a ball is live, player control is required. We can all agree that this is the prime requirement for Team A, to be in TC, to have its TO Request to be Granted, whether a Player of Team A or A-HC is making the Request.

Sentence 2: A player or the head coach of the team in possession may request and be granted a time-out. Sentences 1 and 2 go hand-in-hand.

Let us look at Sentences 1 and 2:
i) If there is no TC Team A's TO Request cannot be Granted.

ii) If there is TC then there also must be PC at the moment of Team A's TO Request for Team A's TO Request can be Granted.


Sentence 3: This request can be oral or visual, but must be verified by the ruling official. This sentence is the primary driving force in our discussion: The word "verified". The word "verified" leads to the question: What are the Officials "verifying?

Sentence 4: If the request meets criteria, a time-out should be granted. This sentence is the secondary driving force in our discussion: The word "criteria". The word "criteria" leads to the question: What are the "criteria" and how does it relate to "verifying"?

Let us look at Sentences 3 and 4:

iii) Sentence 4 is straight forward: It has to be "who" and "when" a TO can be requested during a Live Ball, see the above Item (ii).

iv) How do we answer the question regarding the word "verify" in Sentence 3?

The question in Sentence 3 has two possible answers.

1) First Requirement: Verify that there is PC a the moment the TO Request is made; Second Requirement: Verify that either a Player or the HC is making the Request; and Third Requirement: Verify that there is still PC after the Second Requirement has be met. If all three Requirements are met: Grant the TO. If only the first two Requirements are met: Do not Grant the TO. This is BillyMac's position from what I have gleaned from his Comments. If I am incorrect about his position I am sure that I will get an email from him letting me know what a doddering old fool I am (and I am a doddering old fool).

2) First Requirement: Verify that there is PC at the moment the TO is made, and Second Requirement: Verify that either a Player or the HC is making the Request. If both Requirements are met: Grant the TO.


I take the position of the Second Answer because: We know that we would not even entertain a Team's TO Request if none of its Players do not have PC. Therefore, if a Team does make its TO Request while it has PC, why would we deny its Request in the short time interval it takes to verify that its HC is the one that is making the TO Request.

MTD, Sr.

[billyu2]

Mark, sentences 3 and 4 come under the dead ball category. A verified request can be always be granted immediately in most situations. Live Ball: A head coach can request a time out any time he wants: ball in flight on a try or pass, ball loose on the floor, even when the opponent has the ball. If the coach makes the request when a player of his has control, it simply means the HC made a valid request. Now the official can proceed. If the official is fortunate to see PC and the request at the same time, the procedure is to immediately grant the TO. Why would you use that same procedure in a different situation where the official must first verify it is the head coach? Things can and will happen during verification. The procedure must change from an immediate time out to a delayed time out. 1) The official verifies it is the head coach. 2) The official then ensures there is PC before granting the time out just like the rule says. If there is no PC, no whistle, no time out. And, anything that can and will happen during that brief interval (held ball, steal, CG count violation, dribble out of bounds, successful try for goal) stands because it occurred while the ball legally was live; not denied because the ball was illegally ruled dead at the time of the request.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by billyu2

Mark, sentences 3 and 4 come under the dead ball category. A verified request can be always be granted immediately in most situations. Live Ball: A head coach can request a time out any time he wants: ball in flight on a try or pass, ball loose on the floor, even when the opponent has the ball. If the coach makes the request when a player of his has control, it simply means the HC made a valid request. Now the official can proceed. If the official is fortunate to see PC and the request at the same time, the procedure is to immediately grant the TO. Why would you use that same procedure in a different situation where the official must first verify it is the head coach? Things can and will happen during verification. The procedure must change from an immediate time out to a delayed time out. 1) The official verifies it is the head coach. 2) The official then ensures there is PC before granting the time out just like the rule says. If there is no PC, no whistle, no time out. And, anything that can and will happen during that brief interval (held ball, steal, CG count violation, dribble out of bounds, successful try for goal) stands because it occurred while the ball legally was live; not denied because the ball was illegally ruled dead at the time of the request.

I do not disagree with you about Sentences 3 and 4 applying to Dead Ball TO Requests, but they also apply to Live Ball TO Requests and that is what this Thread has been discussing.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The question in Sentence 3 has two possible answers.

1) First Requirement: Verify that there is PC a the moment the TO Request is made; Second Requirement: Verify that either a Player or the HC is making the Request; and Third Requirement: Verify that there is still PC after the Second Requirement has be met. If all three Requirements are met: Grant the TO. If only the first two Requirements are met: Do not Grant the TO. This is BillyMac's position from what I have gleaned from his Comments. If I am incorrect about his position I am sure that I will get an email from him letting me know what a doddering old fool I am (and I am a doddering old fool).

2) First Requirement: Verify that there is PC at the moment the TO is made, and Second Requirement: Verify that either a Player or the HC is making the Request. If both Requirements are met: Grant the TO.

I take the position of the Second Answer because: We know that we would not even entertain a Team's TO Request if none of its Players do not have PC. Therefore, if a Team does make its TO Request while it has PC, why would we deny its Request in the short time interval it takes to verify that its HC is the one that is making the TO Request.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: While I disagree with you, I like the way you think, you think with the logical mind of a scientist (engineer), and aren't afraid to take your time doing it.

Could you please "dissect" the language of the actual rule (below) like you "dissected" the language of the Point of Emphasis, and then come up with some type of conclusion?

Thanks.

5-8-3-A: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official: Grants and signals a player’s/head coach’s oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when: The ball is at the disposal or in control of a player of his/her team.

[BillyMac]

Our IAABO Connecticut (100% IAABO) State Interpreter spoke and presented a Power Point at our local board meeting yesterday.

According to him, there are three steps to granting a timeout request to a head coach during a live ball, in proper order:

1) Confirm it's the head coach of the team in control.
2) Confirm his player has player control.
3) Grant the timeout.

Of course, I'm not suggesting that these guidelines should be followed by all officials, nor am I suggesting that these guidelines be followed by all IAABO officials, but our IAABO State Interpreter has made many presentations at International IAABO meetings, and is much respected in the IAABO community.

Of course, the usual caveat, when in Rome ...

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Our IAABO Connecticut (100% IAABO) State Interpreter spoke and presented a Power Point at our local board meeting yesterday.

According to him, there are three steps to granting a timeout request to a head coach during a live ball, in proper order:

1) Confirm it's the head coach of the team in control.
2) Confirm his player has player control.
3) Grant the timeout.

...

Curious, as there is no mention of when the whistle occurs (i.e.: after try is released/after opponent steals ball/after player lands OOB). As I read it, if items 1 & 2 are satisfied you are to grant the time-out incidental to when the whistle actually blows.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Curious, as there is no mention of when the whistle occurs (i.e.: after try is released/after opponent steals ball/after player lands OOB). As I read it, if items 1 & 2 are satisfied you are to grant the time-out incidental to when the whistle actually blows.

I can't read is mind, but the granting of the timeout and the whistle occur simultaneously, and since the player has control (or doesn't have control) in the official's field of view, there would seldom be problems.

He spent most of his time speaking about officials (IAABO covers all levels of games here in Connecticut, middle school through varsity) who do not have the player in control in their primary converge area and grant the coach's request without looking for and checking the status of the ball before granting. I guess that that poor technique has led to some pretty ugly situations here in Connecticut, the type of "whistle" situations that have been described in this thread (shot, steal, etc.)

And, no, I didn't ask him about the player flying out of bounds (he only discussed coach requests). We've been calling that the same way (grant) since the glaciers melted here in Connecticut.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: While I disagree with you, I like the way you think, you think with the logical mind of a scientist (engineer), and aren't afraid to take your time doing it.

Could you please "dissect" the language of the actual rule (below) like you "dissected" the language of the Point of Emphasis, and then come up with some type of conclusion?

Thanks.

5-8-3-A: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official: Grants and signals a player’s/head coach’s oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when: The ball is at the disposal or in control of a player of his/her team.

Billy:

I haven't forgotten you Comment. But I am working on a non-basketball project, betting known as a "Honey Do" project, and all know what that means. I will get back to your Comment early next week.

Mark, Sr. aka MTD, Sr.