Time Out
 

Had this last night. NFHS rules. 8 sec left in a tie game. White has the ball under Red's basket. Pass in is tipped and stolen by Red, then White, then Red again.... White coach tries to call time out just as his team got the ball on their steal. Before I can acknowledge the time out Red steals for the second time. I blow the whistle but Red has possession. I ruled an inadvertant whistle, granted White's time out and gave the ball to Red for a sideline throw in.
Did I adjudicate this correctly?

Yes, that is proper.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Live Ball ...
 

I hate these situations. Could be avoided if the NFHS didn't allow head coaches to request timeouts during a clock running live ball.

Officials need to concentrate on the players in these situations, not on oral and/or visual timeout requests coming from "somebody" near the bench.

Request And Grant ...
 

5-8-3-A: 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.

Granted when the ball is in control of player when the request is made, or granted when the ball is in control of player when granted?

Fuzzy rule language?

Wait ...
 

If I'm reading and interpreting the OP correctly, why would you have to declare inadvertent whistle? Were you not (correctly) moving to signal a timeout that was appropriately requested by White when White had possession? If you were a little slow on the trigger, does that negate White's valid request?

Or did White not request the timeout until it had already lost the ball again?

Been There, Done That ...
 

Official: "Do you still want the timeout?"

Head coach: (Knowing that they won't end up with the ball) "Never mind."

Didn't we just go through this? Why not just link to that thread. I'm nearly 100% certain that nothing is new since then.

Fresh Start ...
 

Wanted a fresh start and also wanted to keep it simple.

This was my same thought/question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link ...
 

White requested the TO when white had the ball, you acknowledged it when white had the ball, you blew the whistle. A little bit slow on the whistle doesn't change the fact that you heard it and decided to grant it when white had the ball. White timeout, white ball.

Request Versus Grant ...
 

Knowing that the official’s whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead (it is already dead), what if rbruno, for whatever reason (loud crowded gym, poor sightlines, etc.) needed split seconds to mentally (and possibly visually) evaluate the request (possibly turning his head away for a spit second), and then when finally satisfied the request was legal (appropriate head coach) and when he finally (possibly turning his attention back to the players) decided to grant (no whistle needed), white had lost possession of the ball in those split seconds? Or worse, the ball was on it's way out of bounds, or the ball was in midair as a try, or red had possession of the ball?

I won't go as far as to say that Camron Rust is wrong, but I still believe that the rule language is "fuzzy" at best.

5-8-3-A: 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.

...”seldom” causes a ball to become dead.
 

Seldom does not mean “always.” A request for a time out is not the same as a player with the ball stepping on a boundary, or a foul, or an errant pass landing out of bounds. A coach’s request when his player has control of the ball simply means it was a valid request. A prudent official will make sure there is still player control before granting the time out in my opinion.

Opinion ...
 

Well stated, and I personally agree with you, but it's opinion based on "fuzzy" rule language.

I would not bet my house that our opinion is correct. Ten bucks, maybe, but not my house.

Many times officials will rule in favor of the coach, saying the “request” was made when there was player control. Are we simply in too big of a hurry to oblige the coach his time out request? Why? If the coach doesn’t understand by rule we must first be certain of the status of the ball (PC) before granting his time out request, that is his problem not ours. Locate the ball. Then make your decision. PC, yes? Whistle, grant time out. No PC? No whistle. No time out. The principle here is not any different than ruling on the release of a last-second shot. Would any official whistle the ball dead without accurate knowledge of the location of the ball? Locate the ball. Ball touching hand? Whistle, no shot. Ball in flight? No whistle.

Twenty-Three Year Old Interpretation ...
 

Agree with billyu2's well worded post, as do points of emphasis (with fuzzy wording similar to the actual fuzzy language of the actual rule) published over six different years.

However a twenty-three year old interpretation seems, at first glance, to disagree with both of us.

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)

However, the phrase "and recognized by the official" can also be considered slightly fuzzy language.

Appreciate the effort from billyu2, but this is not an analogous situation. We can keep our "eye on the ball" 100% of the time while we listen for the horn at the same time. Also, there's no fuzzy language regarding a shot at the buzzer, it's pretty much straight forward.

Actually, I never said the situations were comparable. I said it is the principle of being absolutely sure of the location of the ball that is imperative in both situations.

Absolutely Sure ...
 

Agree.

This.

It will require an emphatic call and bit of salesmanship, but if you KNOW white asked for the TO when white had the ball, you should grant the TO.

When In Rome ???
 

Well stated, many may agree with you, it may be 100% NFHS correct, but it's still based on fuzzy rule language, no matter which side one takes.

When in doubt, I default to not granting a timeout request. It's easier to explain that I was not sure whether the requesting team had control than to explain that "White had control at the time of the request, but lost it to Blue before I could blow my whistle." It takes time to confirm that there is a request, that the requester is valid (player or head coach of the requesting team), and that the team requesting the timeout has player control. By the time I confirm all those things, the situation could have changed, and the timeout request could no longer be legally granted.

You would be better off if you KNOW white is asking for a TO and you see white HAS the ball, then grant the TO. No salesmanship required.

If there is brief player control, and the opposing coach doesn't hear the request, you are going need to sell the call.

I’m not sure if anyone cares if the opposing coach hears the request or not but I guess if you feel you need to use some theatrics then go ahead.