Timeout Requested, Time Out Granted ???

[BillyMac]

5-8-3-A: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, must 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.

Must the player control be when the timeout is requested, or when the timeout is granted?

Situation: A loose ball situation occurs and Red #22, while on the floor, is able to get both hands on the ball. Knowing that a held ball is about to occur, Red head coach requests a timeout. Official glances over to insure that it is, indeed, the Red head coach, and then looks back at the players to see that both Red #22 and White #23 have hands in control of the ball in a typical held ball situation. Request was made while only Red #22 had control of the ball. If a timeout was to be granted it would have been granted when both Red #22 and White #23 had hands in control of the ball in a held ball situation.

Ruling?

I would think "granted" goes with player control. In a slightly different situation does an official want to sound a whistle for a timeout when a ball might be bouncing loose on the floor a few feet away from any players? Or during a try? Or during a violation? Or after a ball is out of bounds? "But coach, she had the ball in her control when the timeout was requested".

I believe that the rule language is a little ambiguous (request being granted).

Can we pull just this out of the rule: Granted only when the ball is in control of a player of his/her team (and ignore the word "request")?

Or must we use the word "request" in our ruling?

As we read the rule language, do we "emphasis" the word request, or the word "granted"?

Such REQUEST being granted only when the ball is in control of a player of his/her team.

Such request being GRANTED only when the ball is in control of a player of his/her team.

Because of the juxtaposition of granted and only, I say the player must be in control when the timeout is granted.

This question is based on a recent IAABO make the call video where many say that request is the key parameter.

There hasn't been an "official" IAABO ruling published yet.

I thought that I would start the debate early and head 'em off at the pass.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Must the player control be when the timeout is requested, or when the timeout is granted?

Both, in NCAAW.

[Camron Rust]

I believe the key time is the time of the request being recognized. The whistle just follows that event.

I think, grammatically, the subject of the rule is the request and the player control relates to the request.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Both, in NCAAW.

NCAAW: Both? So if one is missing, let's say the player doesn't have control when the timeout is to be granted, then the time out cannot be granted?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I believe the key time is the time of the request being recognized. The whistle just follows that event. I think, grammatically, the subject of the rule is the request and the player control relates to the request.

Agree that the actual whistle has little to do with it.

So there are occasions where we could grant (forget the whistle) timeouts as the ball is flying out of bounds?

I glad that Camron Rust pointed to grammar as an issue, because that's what I'm struggling with.

I should have paid better attention to my high school English teacher, Mr. Baumgartner.

What's a gerund?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

NCAAW: Both? So if one is missing, let's say the player doesn't have control when the timeout is to be granted, then the time out cannot be granted?

I would have thought "both" was self-explanatory.

Here's a play:
Question:

During Team A's throw-in, Team A's head coach requests time out. A1 releases the throw-in pass. As the pass is in the air, the center official grants Team A's timeout request.

Does the rule support granting the timeout because the request was made when player control existed (allowing for reaction time) or is this an inadvertent whistle?

Answer:

There is no such thing as “reaction time” and this whistle was an inadvertent whistle because the timeout was granted while there was no player control. During the dead ball caused by the inadvertent whistle, if either team wishes a time out, it may be granted. If there is less than one minute remaining in the game, Team A would be able to advance the ball.

A timeout is granted when the official signals to stop play, not when it is requested.

A.R. 170 is on point.

And, the referenced AR:

A.R. 170. With less than one minute remaining in the fourth quarter, B1
scores. Team A’s head coach requests a timeout; however, when the official
grants the timeout, A1’s throw-in pass has been released but the throw-in has
not ended.
RULING: This is an inadvertent whistle and play shall resume at
the point of interruption. Because the throw-in had not ended, play
resumes with the re-administration of the throw-in. The official is
permitted to inquire as to whether Team A still wants the timeout,
noting that the option to advance the ball to the 28-foot throwin
mark in the frontcourt on either side of the playing court is
available.
(Rules 5-14.2 and 7-5.1.b)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

... this whistle was an inadvertent whistle because the timeout was granted while there was no player control.

Thanks.

Is this also true for NFHS? I believe (opinion) that it is the same. Control equals grant.

The situation I was thinking of was more open ended, there was no inadvertent whistle.

The official was undecided as to whether it was too late to grant the timeout because the Red player and the White player both had joint control of the ball (held ball) at the time the official considered granting the timeout request, said request being made when only the Red player had control of the ball.

What should the official have decided? I say don't grant. Call the held ball.

[Camron Rust]

If a player steps OOB and, before you blow the whistle, then gets fouled by B1. Do you forget the OOB violation and call the foul on B1 or do do you call the OOB violation and ignore the foul?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

If a player steps OOB and, before you blow the whistle, then gets fouled by B1. Do you forget the OOB violation and call the foul on B1 or do do you call the OOB violation and ignore the foul?

Not sure what the point is, but I'm calling the out of bounds and then charging the foul, but only if it's intentional or flagrant, otherwise, if not intentional or flagrant, I'm ignoring the foul.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree that the actual whistle has little to do with it.

Basketball Rules Fundamentals #16: The official’s whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead).

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A live ball must be in player control (or at a team's disposal for a FT or throwin) for the team to be granted a timeout.

[BillyMac]

2021-22 NFHS Basketball Points Of Emphasis

Time-Out Administration

During a “dead” ball, either team may be granted a time out. During a live ball, only the team in control of the ball may be granted a timeout. It is important officials verify there is player control prior to granting the request.

Head Coach requesting: Coaches must understand that just because they have requested a timeout does not guarantee it will be granted. Remember, only the head coach or a player of the team in control of the ball may legally request a timeout. Officials must be sure the head coach is making the request. This request may be oral or visual.

Player control. The committee is still concerned that officials are granting timeouts while the ball is loose and not in player control. Over the years, an officiating philosophy has developed that teaches officials to grant loose ball timeouts quickly to avoid rough play and stop additional players from diving onto the loose ball pile. While preventing rough play is desirable, that concept cannot supersede the basic rule that a player must be in control of the ball for a timeout to be legally granted. When in doubt, do not grant the timeout. Additionally, do not hesitate to charge fouls for players “jumping on” another player. “Going for the ball” does not justify this rough play.

Granting Timeout Requests: Ideally, granting the timeout should be the primary coverage official. However, other official(s) may become aware that a timeout is being requested. In all cases, officials must be certain there is player control prior to granting the timeout request. Officials should also be aware of situations where timeouts are more likely to be requested e.g. end of the period/ game or a team has made several baskets in a row.

[BillyMac]

2004-05 NFHS Basketball Points Of Emphasis
Time-Out Administration.
A. Coaches calling. Coaches must understand that just because they've requested a timeout doesn't guarantee it will be granted. Remember, only the head coach may legally request a timeout from the bench. Officials must be sure that the head coach is making the request. That is best done by hearing the coach, then visually confirming the request by seeing the coach request the timeout. Too often officials use sound only, later to discover the time out request was from someone other than the head coach.
B. Player control. The committee is still concerned that officials are granting timeouts while the ball is loose and not in player control. Over the years, an officiating philosophy has developed that teaches officials to grant loose ball timeouts quickly to avoid rough play and stop additional players from diving onto the loose ball pile. While preventing rough play is desirable, that concept cannot supersede the basic rule that a player must be in control of the ball in order for a timeout to be legally granted. When in doubt, do not grant the timeout.

2006-07 NFHS Basketball Points Of Emphasis
Time-Outs: Proper procedures for requesting and granting time-outs have become an area of concern.
Granting Time-Outs: Coaches attempting to call a time-out during playing action are a continuing problem. When player control is lost, officials must concentrate on the playing action while attempting to determine if a time-out should be granted. Coaches should recognize that a request for a time-out does not guarantee that a time-out will be granted until player control is clearly established. Officials should not grant a time-out until player control is clearly established.

2008-09 NFHS Basketball Points Of Emphasis
3. Time-Outs. The proper granting of time-outs continues to be of great concern. During live-ball situations, it is imperative that officials ensure player control before granting a time-out. Additionally, officials must ensure that the time-out request is coming from a player or the head coach of the team in control. Coaches must realize that officials have other responsibilities to the game that require their immediate attention. As a result, coaches must understand that just because a time-out was requested does not mean that a time-out will be granted. During loose-ball situations, when there is doubt as to which player has obtained control, officials should not grant a time-out, but rather rule a held ball.

2013 NFHS Basketball Points of Emphasis
Granting Time-Out – Coaches and officials are reminded of the proper procedures in requesting and granting time-out. Coaches are encouraged to give both a visual signal and verbal request when a requesting time-out. Officials need to know the status of the ball and whether it is in player control. Having a full view of the player in control who is requesting the time-out is critical to determining if you may grant a time-out. It’s vital to know the situation of the game, the proper sequence of calling a time-out, then using proper signals to notify the scorer.

2016-17 NFHS Basketball Points Of Emphasis
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.

[BillyMac]

Turnabout is fair play.

1998-99 NFHS Basketball Rules Interpretations: Situation 8: A1 is dribbling the ball in the frontcourt. The ball bounces off his leg into the backcourt. As A1 goes into backcourt to retrieve the ball, the head coach requests a time-out. Can the time-out request by the head coach be granted by the officials? Ruling: No. Team must be in player control when the verbal or visual request is made by the head coach and recognized by the official. (5-8-3a)

Wow! The red phrase doesn't even include the word grant!

Is this a strong citation for the request (not the grant) being the important parameter?

Is this a drop the microphone moment?

Or a twenty-three year old forgotten interpretation?

[BillyMac]

Stupid question based on rule language, not purpose and intent.

In held ball situation, when opposing players are both holding the ball, do both players have player control? They're both holding the ball, right?

4-12-1: A player is in control of the ball when he/she is holding or dribbling a live ball. There is no player control when, during a jump ball, a jumper catches the ball prior to the ball touching the floor or a non-jumper, or during an interrupted dribble.

4-25-1: A held ball occurs when: Opponents have their hands so firmly on the ball that control cannot be obtained without undue roughness.

If both players don't have player control, is it because of this phrase: Control cannot be obtained, meaning it hasn't been obtained, or it's been lost?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This question is based on a recent IAABO make the call video where many say that request is the key parameter. There hasn't been an "official" IAABO ruling published yet.

IAABO ruling come out today. Nothing in writing explaining the difference between requesting and granting, just simple ruling that the timeout was properly granted in the video, a video (with no audio) that appeared to show a coach requesting a timeout with his player on the floor holding the ball, but was signaled as granted when his player and an opponent were both holding the ball (held ball not called). Like I said, no explanation of the timing between the request and the granting, just that the the timeout was properly granted. Left me wanting a better explanation. Also wasn't discussed as to whether a player (both players) can have control during a held ball situation (immediately before the held ball is actually signaled).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Not sure what the point is, but I'm calling the out of bounds and then charging the foul, but only if it's intentional or flagrant, otherwise, if not intentional or flagrant, I'm ignoring the foul.

You just added stuff to the play that was stated by Cameron. All that he was saying, if you have an event and the moment you happen to blow your whistle the ball is not in player control anymore or in the case of his example, clearly, the violation took place first, you call what happened first. It might look a mess and you might have to explain, but the action that took place first is what you can go with.

This should not be hard to know after all these years. Now should be take our time and be sure that player-control has taken place when we blow our whistle? Yes.

Peace