Time Out Question

[kraz423]

I need some help with this one:

Team A is in their front court and down 2 in the closing seconds of the ball game. A1 is about to travel when there is "time out" called from their bench area. By the way this is a 3-whistle game. The "slot" in front of the bench hits their whistle to signal Time Out almost simoultaneously the "trail" hits their whistle to call a travel. When making eye contact with the bench they notice the head coach was too far down the bench to call a time out and it be heard that clearly. The calling official realizes it was an assistant who called the time out. The head coach admits that it was an assistant but still wants that time out. A long discussion ensues and the result was.....

I need some help with that one and I will post how it was handled after I get some feedback. If you reply and have a clue please include some reference. Thanks for any and all help!!

[tjones1]

If it was decided the head coach didn't call timeout. Then I would say there is a traveling violation, Team B's ball. Dead ball situation, therefore the coach from Team A can now request and be granted a timeout.

[zebraman]

Sounds pretty messy. Regardless of who requested the time-out, the fact is that the official granted it. The officials need to figure out which happened first (travel or time-out) and go with it.

Z

[kraz423]

I just want to add a few more questions here...Is there a penalty for the assistant coach calling a time out? Is it allowable to "T" (Unsporting)him/her up? Do you ignore it and move on? What happens if you "kill it" and then realize the assistant called the time out? Do you resume play as if it was an inadvertent time out? Thanks again!!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by kraz423
I just want to add a few more questions here...Is there a penalty for the assistant coach calling a time out? Is it allowable to "T" (Unsporting)him/her up? Do you ignore it and move on? What happens if you "kill it" and then realize the assistant called the time out? Do you resume play as if it was an inadvertent time out? Thanks again!!

It's definitely not allowable to T the assistant if calling a TO is really all the assistant did. (Although I could imagine a situation where the calling of the TO by the asst is sort of the capper to a developing unsportsmanlike display.) The ref should just ignore the request. But once you "kill it" and thereby grant the TO, you just have to go with it. You can't get away with starting play again as if it were an inadvertant whistle (there is no such thing as an inadvertant time out.)

As far as the travel goes, I'd skip it, if my partner would let me.

[Nevadaref]

Which happened first, the traveling violation or the granting of the time-out to the assistant coach?

Even though the asst. coach's request shouldn't be granted, if it is, the time-out is legal.

The real rule is that whichever one happened first made the ball dead and that is the call the officials have to go with.

A player cannot travel during a dead ball.

[Rick82358]

your description says almost simultaniously, so one thing whistle happened first, which one? If it was the time out then no traveling is called, if it was the travel, call it then ask the head coach if they still want time out if so grant it, at the same time let him know that his assistant coach is going to cause him a problem if he keeps yelling time out.
You have to grant it if you blew it, but in the future you will be taking your time to make sure the head coach is calling time out - that could be a problem with 3 seconds left in the game.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Rick82358
...if it was the travel, call it then ask the head coach if they still want time out ...

Why would you do that? The time-out was requested and granted. The fact that it shouldn't have been granted to this particular person doesn't give the team the option to now decline it.
If the assistant coach fools my partner into granting a time-out, that team is getting charged with one whether the travel is called or not.
Imo your only correct options are no traveling violation and a time-out or a traveling violation followed by a time-out.

[tjones1]

I would handle it this way. If there was a double whistle and the official calling the time-out sold it, that is didn't get together with the other official, then I think there's no choice that you have to grant the time-out. However, if the officials were able to get together on the double whistle, I think that the violation should be called then the timeout granted. JMO.

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Why would you do that? The time-out was requested and granted. The fact that it shouldn't have been granted to this particular person doesn't give the team the option to now decline it.
If the assistant coach fools my partner into granting a time-out, that team is getting charged with one whether the travel is called or not.
Imo your only correct options are no traveling violation and a time-out or a traveling violation followed by a time-out.

In the case of a traveling violation then timeout, I will ALWAYS ask the coach if they still want the time out. In 99% of the cases, the idea is to get a timeout to avoid a violation/foul/turnover/etc. Once the violation is called, the situation has changed and it is only fair to not charge the timeout that was requested under different circumstances.

[Mark Dexter]

Originally posted by Camron Rust

In the case of a traveling violation then timeout, I will ALWAYS ask the coach if they still want the time out. In 99% of the cases, the idea is to get a timeout to avoid a violation/foul/turnover/etc. Once the violation is called, the situation has changed and it is only fair to not charge the timeout that was requested under different circumstances.

I tend to agree, but:

1. In your situation, it's a lot easier to say "my whistle was for the travel/foul/etc. - NOT to grant a timeout." In this case, a timeout has been granted by the fact that the T sounded his/her whistle to grant TO.

2. It was the assistant coach who "requested" the timeout. For pulling that sort of BS, I think the team should get charged with the TO.