granting time-out as player goes oob

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I think that you might be confusing the granting of the TO with my subsequent whistle, hand signal, and announcement. The granting is a mental event that can take place virtually instantaneously with the request. Whistling etc. takes a bit longer.

Same with the issue of a TO just before the opponent steals the ball. FWIW I agree with Rich.

I whistled a coach-requested TO just as a player let go of a 3 that swished. Coach just said, "that always seems to happen" and smiled.

[bigdogrunnin]

If the timeout request was made, and all conditions to LEGALLY request the timeout were present, and the official can verify that the coach of the team in possession of the ball was the person requesting the timeout, why would any official NOT grant it? Just curious.

Just last week (in the same game) I had the exact scenarios Rich and Snaq described. In one, Team A player is trapped in the corner by B1 and B2. Team A coach requests TO. Before my co-official can blow his whistle, there is a steal. TWEET! He gave the TO to Team A. Team B Coach didn't like it, but the request was made and had been granted by the official even though he wasn't able to signal as much until after the steal had been made. In the second situation, Team A player is spotting up for a 3-pt. shot. Coach requests TO. I check to make sure it is the HC, and look for a signal or verbal request. GOT IT! Player shoots the 3-pt shot. TWEET! SWISH! Nothing but net. Me: "No Shot! No Shot! Time out, white!" I wave off the basket, and report the timeout request to the table. Coach understood. He didn't like the fact that HIS request cost his team 3 points (they lost by ONE), but his action determined the outcome. I have to go with what I have at that moment. As an official I can't try to foresee the future, I can only go with the present.

BTW, the timeout request shall be granted as long as the player has control of the ball and his position is legally inbounds. Since his last legal position was inbounds, he is not OOB until he hits the floor OOB. I did have a coach yell at me one night, "this isn't the NBA! He can't do that." My reply, "Coach, timeout Blue!" He wanted to vent, and bait me into a response. He got to vent, but I gave up being a fish a long time ago.

[just another ref]

This has confirmed my idea that this is one of those things where "everybody does it that way," I am still having a problem with the language in the books.

5-8 reads: Time-out occurs.....when an official
1. signals.....
2. stops play
3. grants a .....request
4. responds to the scorer's
signal

The way I read this, it ain't a time-out until we say it is.

This, of course, is as opposed to a foul or violation, which cause the ball to become dead when they occur. 6-7

Why does 6-7 not include: ball becomes dead when a player/head coach requests a time-out. or: an official recognizes the request for a time-out which has been properly made by a player or head coach.

Is there anything written anywhere (nfhs interpretation, old casebook play) which supports the position of everybody else in the world except me on this issue?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Is there anything written anywhere (nfhs interpretation, old casebook play) which supports the position of everybody else in the world except me on this issue?

Fundamental #16 (page 74 of the rulebook)

The official's whistle seldom cause the ball to become dead (it is already dead).

You are reading way too much into this situation. Are you going to tell me if a ball handler travels and the official does not blow the whistle until the ball is air, are you going to count the basket because the whistle was not blown in time?

Peace

[Adam]

Actually, he's saying a timeout is different in that it doesn't cause the ball to become dead until the official grants it. The official doens't grant it, based on the rules, until the whistle blows. A travel is different in that the ball is already dead when the whistle blows, same as a common foul. By rule, I think he's right.
That said, the facts that no one calls it this way and that the Fed hasn't issued a clarification or POE saying it should be called that way tell me that we're doing it the way the rules committee wants it done.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Actually, he's saying a timeout is different in that it doesn't cause the ball to become dead until the official grants it. The official doens't grant it, based on the rules, until the whistle blows. A travel is different in that the ball is already dead when the whistle blows, same as a common foul. By rule, I think he's right.

You can think he is right, but that would be a bad assumption. For one there is no ruling that supports that point of view. If you find one, let me know. When there is a fundamental listed in the rulebook, you can bet the farm there are not exceptions to those statements.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

That said, the facts that no one calls it this way and that the Fed hasn't issued a clarification or POE saying it should be called that way tell me that we're doing it the way the rules committee wants it done.

Not sure why you need clarification unless you are over thinking a rule. This is as clear as it gets. And if everyone is practicing the situations this way and the NF has not changed anything, you can pretty much come to an easy conclusion.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You can think he is right, but that would be a bad assumption. For one there is no ruling that supports that point of view. If you find one, let me know. When there is a fundamental listed in the rulebook, you can bet the farm there are not exceptions to those statements.



Not sure why you need clarification unless you are over thinking a rule. This is as clear as it gets. And if everyone is practicing the situations this way and the NF has not changed anything, you can pretty much come to an easy conclusion.

Peace

I don't need a clarification. My point (as it pertains to JAR's point) is simply that a strict reading of the meaning of the words in the rule would indicate that the ball does not become dead on a TO until the official blows his whistle. However, with the spirit and intent of the rules, combined with the fundamental you mentioned, indicate that standard practice is correct. However, the fundamental you cite inherently has exceptions. "The official's whistle seldom...." There are exceptions to this fundamental. The question is, are TOs an exception, or do they follow the rule. I'd say based on the spirit and intent; they follow the fundamental.

That said, a strict reading of the rule leads the other direction.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

By rule, I think he's right.
........ no one calls it this way and that the Fed hasn't issued a clarification or POE saying it should be called that way .........

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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[mcdanrd]

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.

[mcdanrd]

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).

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by mcdanrd

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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[Dan_ref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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..."

[Johnny Ringo]

Bottom line here is that if A1 has the ball secured and is flying into the front row and yells (and may even signal while holding the ball) for a TO before he touches something OOB .... then we can grant a TO! Correct?