A's ball. I am new trail tableside in A's BC. I am near A's bench. Specifically, I am within 10 feet of A's coach. I hear somehting that maybe sounded like time out but it was very faint and I was very unsure. By the time I can glance to confirm what I heard or didnt hear, my P calls a violation on A. This was not a loud and clear TO request by any means and I never got any air in my whistle.

Should I have A) stayed with the violation and explained to him that because I had to confirm the TO, play continued up to the violation.

or B) consider the what I would call a mutter "specific knowledge", overrule the violation and take my lumps from B?

To quote King Louie from the Mel Brooks movie History of the World Part One..."Hump or Death?"

Larks
VIT

If, when you turned to look at the coach, you confirmed that he had been requesting a TO, then grant it. Simply go to your partner and say, "We had a TO first". Tell the opposing the coach the same thing. He/she won't like it, but tough.

If you can't confirm that the coach was requesting TO, then you go with your partner's call.

If you need to confirm the call for a TO, then you could probably guess that if the violation wasn't called, you would've still waited past that point to call the TO. I'd say a time out is called, when you acknowledge it. And remember that the coach can be granted a time out after the violation during the dead ball.

I'm not getting your point here. Are you saying that you let the violation stand, even tho you know that the coach requested the TO before your partner's whistle? Tough noogies for the coach, b/c he/she happened to be behind you?

What i'm saying is that if you have to check to see if the coach has called a time out, then you can't have definite knowledge that one was called before the violation. I think you can only grant a time out when you are sure that the coach has called one. If I'm not sure about whether or not he wants one, than I won't call one.