This is the part that I don't get. We need a clarification to say that we should call a play as the rule is written? Obviously this is not a big deal, since I had never really noticed it much before, but does everyone see this as something that has evolved over time, or has it always been called this way? The kicker to me is the coach calling time out.

4. Time-Out Administration
The committee discussed several problems that have arisen regarding time-outs being called by the head coach during a live ball. Officials should verify that it is indeed the head coach requesting the time-out ...........


A significant amount of time (a second or two?) could pass between hearing the coach (he may be behind you, and there may be several other voices "helping" him) and having time to look and verify. Defense could have stolen the ball and done whatever by then.

Ain't that the truth? I believe that this year the committee considered, but ultimately decided against, a proposed change to only allow the HC to call time out during a dead ball with the clock stopped. So I guess we live with this and coaches learn to accept the realities associated with the rule as it is.

The NFHS 2005 - 2006 casebook addresses this issue in 5.8.3 Situation D: A1 or A2 requests a timeout (a) while airborne A1 is holding the ball. Ruling: the request is granted in (a).

This is not the issue. The issue is whether this request, which was made while airborne, can still be granted after he lands out of bounds.

I would say yes, because the case play doesn't offer a caveat that says, "as long as the official sounds the whistle prior to the player landing out of bounds." It's plain and simple, grant the request. ;)

Let's ignore the ncaa case, by now we all know airborne player heading OOB or backcourt cannot get a time out.

Under fed the answer to your question is yes.

Example: A1 airborne with the ball requests a timeout just before he lands OOB. Official recognizes the request and blows the whistle immediately after A1 lands OOB.

Are you trying to tell us the official is required by rule to recognize and whistle the TO request *before* A1 lands OOB in this case? If so, do you have rule support to determine how close A1 must be to landing before we cannot grant the time out? Or do we kinda make this up as we go along?

"Sorry coach, I can't give him the timeout. Yeah I know he requested it before landing out of bounds, but he asked too late..."

Or, "Sorry coach. He asked before landing, but I was too late blowing my whistle."

Rule please?

Yeah, I'm not ready for that conversation.

;)

We agree.

:)

OK, try this from the NFHS 2006 - 2007 Simplified and Illustrated Handbook page 67......."The whistle is nearly always used merely as a convenient method of attracting attention to something which has already occurred to cause the ball to become dead." In this issue the player requested, and the official granted, a timeout while the player was airborne. The whistle followed as a signal that a timeout had been granted. The player's location at the time of the whistle has no bearing on the issue.

As written, that is the way it is. I was asking if there was something obvious that I had overlooked on this issue, apparently there is not. Why would there not be an article is 6-7 which says that the ball becomes dead when
a player/head coach properly requests a time-out. The only reason I could think of was that a time-out was not meant to be used as a "panic button"
which could be used to avoid a turnover. What about this? I have had a coach realize, a bit too late, that his player was in trouble and request a time-out immediately after the whistle. In this case what I do is ask
"Do you still want it?" (often they don't) Is that what everybody else does?

JAR, that's exactly I do when they request time-out too late.

I've asked it many times. Not smart-alec, just matter of factly.

My $0.02
 

I have searched the entire rule book for a definition of what it means to "grant" a timeout. There isn't one. That leaves us to speculate on the exact definition. You have postulated that blowing the whistle comprises the act of granting a timeout. Others have suggested that granting is an intellectual act that is then followed by a whistle to communicate the grant.

I'm in the second camp for a couple of reasons. First, equating the whistle with granting puts an unreasonable burden on the official. The question you raise is just one example. If blowing the whistle is the act of granting then there is a very real possibility that every time a timeout is granted it could be done incorrectly because the play situation may change between the time that you intellectually assess that all requirements are met and you blow the whistle. What do you do if between the time the synapses fire and the air enters the whistle the dribble is interrupted or stolen? BTW, can you name me any other situation where an official's judgement (or assessment of a situation) and his/her whistle must be exactly simultaneous?

Second, despite its inherent pedanticness (perhaps pedanticalness), the rule book actually depends on inherent (and sometimes fuzzy) understanding of definitions of some words it uses. It is, I believe, entirely reasonable and consistent to assume that when a term is used, but no technical or legal definition is provided, that how it is understood in common usage is how it is intended by the rules committee. Were that not the case, they would make an editorial change, issue a case, provide an interpretation, or use one of the other means at their disposal to communicate that what is commonly understood is not, in fact, what they intended. The committee, in this case, has not done that. Therefore I must conclude that they believe common usage reflects their intention. You have seen through this discussion that your understanding of "granting" a timeout differs from the common understanding.

As for the "panic button," it seems that the rules committee is in favor of allowing it. The rules once contained language prohibiting the granting of a timeout when a change of status was about to occur (80% of a count being exhausted, I believe). Some years ago they explicitly removed that prohibition. That, btw, is far more telling than if the rules had always been silent on the matter. And while the NCAA has recently changed their rules to disallow certain "panic button" timeouts, the NFHS has not. Perhaps they will next year. But if they do, it will be a rule change, which means that the new rule will be different than the current one -- which allows all forms of "panic button" timeouts so long as the requesting team is in player control of the ball (or has the ball at their disposal).