Requesting timeout on layup situation???

[RefsNCoaches]

If the player is in control and the coach requests it, grant it.

Reminds me of the time I was coaching my 5th grader (who is now college freshman) ...We were a solid and fundamental team for our age...our team was ahead in a gam but we were beginning to play very erratic. The ball is being passed around the perimeter and I'm requesting time out...and as it gets to my best shooter, about the time the whistle blows to grant it, she's putting up a 3...swish! No shot...time out before the shot! Her Dad was so pissed at me!

But not as mad as the 2nd time it happened in that game about 2 minutes later!

I finally told him I didn't give a damn about his daughter's PPG...I'm trying to teach these kids BBIQ and to understand game/clock management and we didn't need 3s at that point. Poor shot selection was allowing our opponent to get back in the game.

[#olderthanilook]

I'll bet he was really pissed when you told him his daughter's poor shot selection was the reason the opponent was climbing back into the game.

[BigCat]

Grant it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RefsNCoaches

Her Dad was so pissed at me! I finally told him I didn't give a damn about his daughter's PPG...I'm trying to teach these kids BBIQ and to understand game/clock management and we didn't need 3s at that point. Poor shot selection was allowing our opponent to get back in the game.

Makes no nevermind. College coaches check out fifth grader statistics and grandmother videographer game videos online all the time. You cost his daughter a full ride to Notre Dame and a lucrative career in the WNBA.

[RefsNCoaches]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Makes no nevermind. College coaches check out fifth grader statistics and grandmother videographer game videos online all the time. You cost his daughter a full ride to Notre Dame and a lucrative career in the WNBA.

Hahahaa...Yeah, I know...I know...always derailing the youth team member scholarships! I never put a lot of stock in the parents man. Been coaching kids so long and I know my players leave at the end of the season more skilled, and more importantly, smarter players after I coach them...I wouldn't change that for anything.

On a side note...she's now playing volleyball at the University of Indianapolis ...not sure if she'll play hoops but she was always a solid player in both sports as a kid coming up. Coached her in softball too for a couple years. She had a lot of drive as a kid and it obviously paid off for her.

[Shane O]

Thanks for the replies fellas! In hindsight, I should have granted the TO. By the time the whistle would have blown the ball would have already been released on the shot and I'm sure confusion would have shown on everyone except for the HC.

All I can do is learn from these types of situations. I kinda already knew the responses I would get. A good reminder to be vigilant and stay ultra focused on the present moment while officiating.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Shane O

Thanks for the replies fellas! In hindsight, I should have granted the TO. By the time the whistle would have blown the ball would have already been released on the shot and I'm sure confusion would have shown on everyone except for the HC.

This is one where you may want to come in strong with a heavy whistle and yelling..."no shot, timeout!!!"

You want to being doing that as soon as you can before the ball goes in or misses. Then, you can hope that it goes in and the other coach will be thrilled you granted the timeout and the one that called it can't complain either.

[Shane O]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

This is one where you may want to come in strong with a heavy whistle and yelling..."no shot, timeout!!!"

You want to being doing that as soon as you can before the ball goes in or misses. Then, you can hope that it goes in and the other coach will be thrilled you granted the timeout and the one that called it can't complain either.

Agreed!

[Randa16]

Nothing better then giving a coach a TO and his player makes a shot lol

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I am not going back through the thread and make a lot of multi-quotes. But I am going to clarify some of the various points made in this thread.

I) When the Ball is Dead: Either Team can Request a TO.

A) Any of the ten Players on the Court may Request a TO.

B) Either HC may Request a TO.


II) When the Ball is Live: Only the Team that has Control (TC) of the Ball can Request a TO.

A) The Request must be made when a Player as Control (PC) of the Ball.

B) Any of the five Players on the Court may Request a TO.

C) The HC may Request a TO.


III) Verification of the Status of the Ball when a TO Request is made.

A) After a Made FGA or FTA:

1) Is the Ball Dead? Or

2) Is the Ball at the Disposal of the Thrower (i.e., the Ball is Live)?

B) The Ball is Live. (If the Ball is Dead see Item (I) above.)

1) Is there TC by either Team?

a) No. The TO Request cannot be Granted.

b) Yes.

i) Is there PC? No: The Request cannot be Granted. Yes: The Request can be Granted.


IV) When there is TC and a Player Requests a TO it is relatively easy, most of the time, to quickly verify that there is PC when the Request is made. Why? Before the NFHS and NCAA Men's Rules Committees amended the TO Rule to also allow HCs to request a TO, rarely did Players, on their own initiative, request a TO (Think Chris Webber, 1993 NCAA Men's National Championship Game; Jeff I am sorry to have to reference this game.). HCs, close to 100% of the time, instructed their Players when to request a TO.

Amending the TO Rule really did not change the dynamic as to when a Team requested a TO or the Officials protocol as to how a TO Request is handled. It only allowed one more person the ability to request a TO.


V) Recent POEs have only highlighted BBB important aspects of a Live Ball TO Request:

A) The Request cannot be Granted unless there is PC by a Player of the Team with TC,

B) Do not immediately Grant the Request unless made by the Player in PC, or

C) When there is PC and the Request is made by a Player other than the Player in PC or by the HC, verify that the request was made by a Player of the HC of the Team with TC.

1) If the Request is by a Player or HC of the Team not in TC, ignore the Request and let play continue.

2) If the Request is by a Player or HC of the Team in TC, Grant the Request, any thing that happened between the Time that the Request was made and the Time that it was actually Granted is ignored unless it is an IF, FF by either Team.

a) For all intents and purposes the Ball has become Dead retroactively (The word "retroactive" is, I believe, best word that describes the situation.), and

b) See Item (III-B-1-b-i) above.


Side Note 1: There have been a few comments in this Thread and many older Threads making the recommendation that the Article defining who can Request a TO be amended to return to its "ancient" requirement of only Players can Request a TO, and the most given reason is that it just adds to the Game Officials duties during Live Ball action during the game. I can truthfully say that there is no member of this Forum that has more experience with this Rule than me. The Rule amended portion that was added to the NFHS and NCAA Men's Rules was adopted (in the late 1980s if my memory serves me correctly because I do not have access to my attic right now) from the NCAA Women's Rules that was part of the NAGWS Basketball Rules that was adopted by the NCAA Women's Rules Committee when the Committee was formed in 1982 or 1983. The Rule predates my becoming a women's college basketball official in 1974, and I seriously doubt that anyone else in the Forum was officiating women's college basketball back then. NAGWS Basketball Rules was also used by some State in the Northeast for girls' H.S. but I think that by the 1980s that was no more. None-the-less, my position has always been that I could care less about the Rule amendment because I already had considerable experience with administering it.


Side Note 2: There is a historical discussion to be made as to why HCs could not make TO Requests in boys'/girls' H.S. and men's college, but that is for another time and day.


MTD, Sr.

[billyu2]

What I believe MTD is saying:
TO request > Verify > Grant > Ignore infractions or change of ball status that may occur during verifying. Ball becomes dead “retroactively” to request.

What I believe the rules say:
TO request > Verify > Ensure PC > Grant: See Rule 5-8-3a and 6-7 DEAD BALL (note there is no rule statement or case play to support ball becoming dead “retroactively” to time of request.

Situations to Consider:

Play 1.
A1 is dribbling very near the sideline opposite the table. HC requests a TO. As the tableside official turns to verify, the ball lands on the sideline. The official opposite and the unaware tableside official simultaneously sound their whistles, one to signal the violation, the other to signal the TO. How would you rule this?

Play 2.
A1 is holding the ball opposite the table. HC requests a TO. As the tableside official turns to verify, B2 gets a firm grip on the ball. Both officials simultaneously sound their whistles, one for a held ball, the unaware tableside official for a TO. How would you rule this?

Play 3.
A1 is holding the ball opposite the table. HC requests a TO. As the tableside official turns to verify, B2 pokes the ball away from A1 and grabs the ball out of the air. The unaware tableside official sounds the whistle and grants the TO. How would you rule this?

[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.