granting time-out as player goes oob

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

I would agree that it's a bad rule. When I suggested the need to better define "grant" I was thinking mostly about the OP and the falling OOB scenario. But I admit to liberally mixing several scenarios in my analysis of JAR's proposed rule change.

If I had to prioritize my wishes, getting rid of the HC timeout request would rank waaaaay above better defining "grant." I think it's well enough understood by most people as it is.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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.

But that still wouldn't fix the issue at hand. Any player on the court might still request the timeout just before another player on his/her team violates.