granting time-out as player goes oob
 

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 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.

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.

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

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, such request being granted only when:

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

Time-out occurs when it is granted, not when it is requested.

As written, it does require the granting before the ball becomes dead.

It could easily read, "...such request being granted only when the request is made while the ball is in control or at the disposal of a player of his/her team."

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.

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.

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've whistled time-outs while the ball is in flight for a shot, after 5 seconds have elapsed during a throwin, after the ball gets tied up on the floor, while a pass is in flight, and after a player has stepped out of bounds; all because the time-out was requested while all of the necessary ingredients were in place. Had the head of the state's officials comment only that my partner's whistle was late on a TO request, but otherwise it was valid.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.:rolleyes:

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

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

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. :)

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?

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).

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.

Errr...so, what rule says you are not allowed to grant the time out? Even though the player is still legally entitled to his time out?

So we have the flexibility to grant a time-out either instantly, (even if the whistle is later) or not at all, depending on the circumstances, even though the requests that were made were identical on two plays. Is there another play where an official must use judgment to decide what a team might want?

Another angle: You hear team A's coach say "I want a time-out after this free throw." But A1 stops listening after "I want a time-out......" and asks for the time-out NOW. You have to call one there, don't you?

What does your question have to do with granting a player a time-out when he/she is falling OOB or is airborne?

Earlier we agreed that the coach asking for a time-out who was too late to avoid a violation should be asked if he still wanted it. In this case we know that the coach doesn't want it, but a player made the request. I wanted to know if this knowledge kept anyone from granting the time-out here.

In <b>both</b> situations you have legally made TO requests. In <b>both</b> situations, there's <b>no</b> reason by rule for you <b>not</b> to grant those TO requests.

These are the words I was waiting for someone to use. By rule, you must grant a time-out request which is properly made. When a player lands out of bounds before the time-out is granted, by rule it is a violation, because his request did not cause the ball to become dead. The bottom line is, I don't see how you can have it both ways.

By rule it's a timeout. Just cause I have a delayed whistle on a foul doesn't mean that the foul doesn't happen before the whistle blows.

You can't officiate the game inside a little book.

You are the only person basically making this argument. I have never heard anyone else ever have an issue with the way the rule was written or the application of the rules. So it is not about anyone having it both ways, it is about the fact you do not want to accept the correct application and want to tell people that not only have been officiating longer than you or I, but I have some insight on the game you likely do not possess at this time. People have been telling you what you should do and you keep telling everyone what is right or wrong. It is one thing to disagree that the wording is not the best, it is quite another to tell everyone how the rule should be applied because you read something that no one else sees. If I brought this conversation up with people that I actually officiate with, I would be laughed out of the locker room.

Peace

Your granting of of the TO caused the ball to become dead. You granted the TO <b>before</b> the player landed OOB. Granting the TO and sounding your whistle to acknowledge that you did grant the TO are two completely different matters. The time between granting the TO and your actual whistle is regarded as lag time, JAR. It's nothing different than being a split-second late in whistling a foul that you've just recognized. It's impossible to blow your whistle simultaneously with the act that you want to call. None of our reflexs are that good.

You're reading something into the rules that isn't there. It's nothing but a standard, every day call.

Similar sitch
 

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.

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.

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.

<b><u>GRANTING TIME_OUTS.</u></b> <i>"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."</i>

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.

I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp. :(

The player requests the TO before the violation occurs. You don't penalize him for failing to blow your whistle quickly enough.

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.

IMNSHO, the time out is "granted" when the official hears/sees the request and recognizes that it is a timeout request...even if it takes a moment to put air in the whistle.

The concept as you explain it is not difficult to grasp. My question, which perhaps I did not fully understand myself, is whether when the rule was written that it was significant that the request itself, or when it was recognized, was not listed among the things which make the ball become dead. According to everyone, this is not significant. Okay, I give up and accept this. But, along the way this led to impromptu explanations of when the timeout is considered to be granted. In a nutshell, when they need it granted quickly, it's done. But, when they request a time-out after a violation has already occurred, we have the flexibility to double-check the request and then not grant it at all. Is there another set of circumstances in the rules which is comparable to this? I haven't been able to think of one.

Because sometimes we know a coach requested a time-out to avoid a violation, turnover, or held-ball situation but their request came too late. So for game management and/or courtesy purposes we ask the coach if they still want their time-out. Most of the time they say forget about it. But every blue moon the coach may say "I still want it".

Not everything we do on the court can be found in "black & white" in the rulebook.