granting time-out as player goes oob

[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.

[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?

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by 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?

In NFHS, yes. In NCAA, no.

[Rusty Gilbert]

The NFHS Points of Emphasis for this year include the following statement concerning timeouts:

3. Time-outs
Proper procedures for requesting and granting time-outs have become an area of concern.
A. 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.

While this does not speak specifically to the situation as in the original post, we could logically conclude that since "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," they should expect that a time-out will be granted when player control exists AND a legitimate/ valid request for a time-out is made.

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

Yes, I would, but then again I wouldn't even bother turning to verify it was the head coach.

Bad, bad, idea, Rich.

2003-04 Points of Emphasis
...
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 and that the ball is in possession of the calling team.

[Ignats75]

On that note, we had a girls JV game a week or so ago that the coach was upset because we didn't grant him the timeout during a potential jumpball before his girl got tied up. The problem was that there were 6 or seven people calling timeout....Fans, ***'t coaches, as well as head coach. By the time my partner was able to identify the head coach's voice was included in the din, I had already killed the play with two thumbs up.

I saw the coach after the game and he asked about it. I explained to him that all his fans calling timeout actually hurt the team. He was going to send a note out to the parents the next week.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

If you have to read that much into it, you likely are wrong. The casebook is the place where rulings are given to support the definitions or explanations from the rulebook. Unless you can find a specific passage that only the whistle being blown makes the play dead, then you are dead wrong period. When they put something in a fundamental not sure you can say this does not apply. But like anything, this is a free country and you can believe whatever you want to. I just think you are being a rulebook official rather than applying the obvious intent of this rule.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I just think you are being a rulebook official rather than applying the obvious intent of this rule.
Peace

No, I'm not; but I would be if I called it that way.

[Raymond]

What would alleviate this whole debate would be good communication skills on the court. If the player has control of the ball and requests a time-out then ends up out-of-bounds before your whistle sounds then you communicate to everyone that he/she requested the time-out before the violation occurred.

[Hartsy]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

What would alleviate this whole debate would be good communication skills on the court. If the player has control of the ball and requests a time-out then ends up out-of-bounds before your whistle sounds then you communicate to everyone that he/she requested the time-out before the violation occurred.

This is just how easy it is.

I was also in on a situation like mentioned before where a TO was requested by a coach when his team had control but I whistled AFTER (well, AS) his team had made an errant pass that was soon to turn into a layup the other way.

A lot of people stood up to cheer me, including the coach who thought I stole 2 points from him. He didn't stand much more after that, but he was able to finish the game.

[mj]

This entire thread is making a mountain out of a molehill. UGH

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mj

This entire thread is making a mountain out of a molehill. UGH

Dude, that's what we do. If a molehill can't be made into a mountain, what good is it?