granting time-out as player goes oob

[just another ref]

Last week I watched a game where twice (once for each team) a time out was granted to a player who called it as he went out of bounds. In both cases (one was extremely close, the other was not) the player signaled while in the air, but the whistle was blown after the player had landed out of bounds. My interpretation has always been that the request must be recognized and granted by the official before the ball becomes dead, which it clearly was in these cases when the player landed out of bounds. How does everyone else handle this?

[Rusty Gilbert]

I don't ever want to be too quick on this whistle. In high school, an airborne player who has control of the ball can request such a timeout. For me, all that matters is that I be convinced player has ball control and that the ball was still live when he made the request. If I happen to blow my whistle before or after he lands OOB does not negate the fact that the player made a legitimate TO request and, by rule, should be granted the TO.

In NCAA, a rule change this year makes an airborne player whose momentum carries him/her OOB or into the backcourt (in situations where it would be a B/C violation) unable to make a valid timeout request. In these instances, we MUST be patient for the player to land and determine if the momentum truly carried the player OOB or into the backcourt. If so, then we ignore the request and whistle the violation. If they land inbounds or in the frontcourt (thereby avoiding initially the violation), then we would acknowledge the reuqest and award the timeout.

A valid and legal TO request should be acknowledged and the timeout awarded, even if the awarding is a little late.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rusty Gilbert

If I happen to blow my whistle before or after he lands OOB does not negate the fact that the player made a legitimate TO request and, by rule, should be granted the TO.


A valid and legal TO request should be acknowledged and the timeout awarded, even if the awarding is a little late.

What rule are we looking at to make this determination?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What rule are we looking at to make this determination?

Why does it need a rule? The whistle doesn't make the ball dead -- it's the action on the court that does.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Why does it need a rule? The whistle doesn't make the ball dead -- it's the action on the court that does.

That was my point. Requesting a time-out does not make the ball dead.
Landing out of bounds does.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

That was my point. Requesting a time-out does not make the ball dead.
Landing out of bounds does.

Right, but you seem to be missing Rich's point. The TO request came before the ball was dead, and is thus legitimate and should be granted. The rule does not require that the granting of the TO occur before the ball becomes dead.
5-8-3

[Rusty Gilbert]

Originally Posted by just another ref

What rule are we looking at to make this determination?

5.8.
Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official:

ART.3...Grants a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when:

a.) The ball is in control or at the disposal of a player of his/her team.


The whistle doesn't have to blow within a milisecond of the timout request occuring for it to be recognized and then dealt with appropriately. I believe that the provision in 5.8.3.a refers to when the moment the TO request is made, not to the moment when the whistle is blown.

For example, if a player makes a valid timeout request (in other words, the conditions of 5.8.3.a are all met), then I should award the timeout.

I don't think that the "conditions" of 5.8.3.a must necessarily continue until I blow the whistle, only that they must be present when the request is made and that I recognize and award the TO in a timely fashion.

For an analogy consider this: a foul by B1 occurs on A1. I do not have to blow my whistle WHILE the foul is still happening in order for it to be a valid foul call. In most cases, the whistle is reference a "foul" condition that existed in the past, has now been recognized to be illegal, and is being dealt with appropriately. Using official speak, the foul happened, and I go back and get it.

Just my thots.....merry christmas.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Rusty Gilbert

I don't think that the "conditions" of 5.8.3.a must necessarily continue until I blow the whistle, only that they must be present when the request is made and that I recognize and award the TO in a timely fashion.

For an analogy consider this: a foul by B1 occurs on A1. I do not have to blow my whistle WHILE the foul is still happening in order for it to be a valid foul call. In most cases, the whistle is reference a "foul" condition that existed in the past, has now been recognized to be illegal, and is being dealt with appropriately. Using official speak, the foul happened, and I go back and get it.

The two things are apparently not the same.

Basketball Rules Fundamentals: 16. The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead. (it is already dead) seldom, not never

6-7-7: The ball becomes dead......when.......a foul occurs.

6-7-5: The ball becomes dead.....when.....an official's whistle is blown.

A time-out being requested is not included in the list of things which make the ball dead.


As mentioned earlier:

5-8-3: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official grants a players/head coach's oral or visual request for a
time-out.... (not when it is requested)


What if A's coach is behind you and asks for a time-out? You hear the request, but before you can turn to verify that it is the head coach, B steals the ball and lays it in. You then turn and see that it was indeed the head coach. You're not going to wave off the basket, are you?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The two things are apparently not the same.

Basketball Rules Fundamentals: 16. The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead. (it is already dead) seldom, not never

6-7-7: The ball becomes dead......when.......a foul occurs.

6-7-5: The ball becomes dead.....when.....an official's whistle is blown.

A time-out being requested is not included in the list of things which make the ball dead.


As mentioned earlier:

5-8-3: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official grants a players/head coach's oral or visual request for a
time-out.... (not when it is requested)


What if A's coach is behind you and asks for a time-out? You hear the request, but before you can turn to verify that it is the head coach, B steals the ball and lays it in. You then turn and see that it was indeed the head coach. You're not going to wave off the basket, are you?

Yes, I would, but then again I wouldn't even bother turning to verify it was the head coach. And yes, if the ball is stolen before the whistle, I would grant the time out as it was requested before the steal.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Last week I watched a game where twice (once for each team) a time out was granted to a player who called it as he went out of bounds. In both cases (one was extremely close, the other was not) the player signaled while in the air, but the whistle was blown after the player had landed out of bounds. My interpretation has always been that the request must be recognized and granted by the official before the ball becomes dead, which it clearly was in these cases when the player landed out of bounds. How does everyone else handle this?

I've never seen an official be able to grant the TO before the player landed.

Grant the TO if it's legally made while the ball is still live.

If he lands before he makes the request, whistle the violation and then ask if he still wants the TO.

[mplagrow]

OK, last week the coach stood and yelled "time out" just a split second before his guard traveled. I didn't have a chance to blow the whistle to stop play before the violation, however my common sense tells me to take the event that occurred first, the time out. Even one of the kids on the team asked me, "Did he get the time-out before the travel?" No travel had been blown or signaled because the time out was CALLED (not GRANTED) first.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mplagrow

OK, last week the coach stood and yelled "time out" just a split second before his guard traveled. I didn't have a chance to blow the whistle to stop play before the violation, however my common sense tells me to take the event that occurred first, the time out. Even one of the kids on the team asked me, "Did he get the time-out before the travel?" No travel had been blown or signaled because the time out was CALLED (not GRANTED) first.

Okay, this one made my light bulb come on. (about time) This one is easier to define in my mind because my thought process would have already started as far as granting the time out before the travel. The travel was not anticipated, the airborne player landing out of bounds obviously was, but the concept is the same.

Having said all this, I would still like the addition to 6-7: Ball becomes dead when a player/coach properly requests a time-out.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Okay, this one made my light bulb come on. (about time) This one is easier to define in my mind because my thought process would have already started as far as granting the time out before the travel. The travel was not anticipated, the airborne player landing out of bounds obviously was, but the concept is the same.

Having said all this, I would still like the addition to 6-7: Ball becomes dead when a player/coach properly requests a time-out.

On its surface this sounds like a good change. However, when you factor in the reality that sometimes we simply don't see/hear the request, then you've got a bigger problem than simply failing to hear a request; you've missed a dead ball. I also think that coaches would develop (more of) an attitude that they have the power to stop the game any time they please. Then there are the potentially prickly clock management issues. A HC requests a time out, the official has to verify that it was actually the HC and that the team is in player control of the ball. That takes time. Do we put that time back on the clock since the ball became dead upon his/her request? How do we know how much time? Technically it's a moot point because we only put time back on the clock if it fails to stop on the whistle. But every HC in America will want to argue that the ball was dead the moment he made that funny T sign and that wants every last tenth of a second that ran off the clock while you verified the situation, blew the whistle, and the clock operator stopped the clock.

No, the better solution would be for them to make a little more explicit what they mean by grant. The rule is just fine the way it is; you simply insist on reading your own meaning of "grant" into it.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

No, the better solution would be for them to make a little more explicit what they mean by grant.

Disagree. The better solution would be just to revert to the old rule and forget about letting the head coach call a TO. Hell, even the FED is finally starting to admit that they screwed up when they changed this rule, as per the POE in this year's rule book.

GRANTING TIME_OUTS. "Coaches attempting to call a time-out during playing action are a continuing problem. When player control is lost, officials must concentrate on playing action while attempting to determine if a time-out should be granted. Coaches should recognize that a request for a time-out does not guarantee that a time-out will be granted until player control is clearly established. Officials should not grant a time-out until player control is clearly established."

Add that on to the fact that you also have to verify that it is indeed the head coach who is requesting the TO, and not an assistant coach, sub, trainer or some doofus fan sitting in the second row behind the bench. It all adds up to a really stoopid rule imo. And a stoopid rule that is also a pain-in-the-butt to administer.