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.

[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?

[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?

[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 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?

[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).