TO before throw-in violation?
 

Had this happen and would like some views on how it could be handled. I'm the T and the L is inbounding on the base line table side. I'm right next to the coach who's team is inbounding. At the 4 1/2 sec. mark the coach asks me for a TO, as I recognize it and before I can blow the whistle, the L blows his and signals a 5 sec. call. It was bang,bang situation. he looked at me as though I was going to overide the L's whistle, however, I said that he needs to call that earlier, so that I can respond to his request. How would you have handled this same sit?

You recognized the request before the 5 second violation was called. If it were me, I'm hitting the whistle good and loud and going to my partner and telling him I've got a time out before the violation. Then unless he's got some compelling reason why the violation actually occurred first, I'm granting the timeout. This may also require an explanation to the other coach, which I will happily give after I get his team moving to their bench and report the timeout (which will make it a moot point and should do quite a bit to deflate any argument he may want to make)

Of course, that's predicated on my argument in the other thread that granting and whistling are not the same act.

If the coach requested it before the throw-in violation grant the time-out.

Backinthesaddle has this right. As long as you were told the request before your partner had the violation I am granting the TO.

Ray, a player leaps to save a ball from going OOB. While airborne, he yells for a timeout. Before you can blow the whistle, he lands OOB. Do you grant the timeout?

How is your play any different?

Okay, thanks for the input. Now from another perspective. L has his whistle 1st, then me. I go see the L and tell him the request came before his whistle. I go to grant the TO and now the other coach is asking why the TO? the L's whistle came 1st. It would now look like I'm overiding my partner's call. The other coach now thinks I'm favoring the coach who called the TO after the violation which would have given him the ball in a close game with 45 ticks left. Is this why we're paid the big $?

"Coach, he made his request just before the 5 seconds ran out. I'd do the same for you."

You say, "Sorry, but he's in Dallas, thank God.":D

Seriously, how could you possibly know that your partner's count was at the 4 1/2 second mark? He counted 5, then blew his whistle. You heard the coach request time-out, then blew your whistle. I would assume there would be a tiny lag in both cases. In this case it seems that which whistle came first would be the determining factor.

I agree with J-A-R. You have to assume that your lag time (request to whistle) is the same as your partners (violation to whistle). That's exactly what I'm telling the coach if he asks after I tell him, "sorry, coach, he had the violation at or before your request."

You're changing the case. In the OP, the official who granted the TO blew his whistle first. Even by your standard the TO occurs before the violation.

Your case is harder, but the TO was still granted before the violation occurred.

Give the timeout. The request was made before the violation. And, add what BITS said.

Read the OP again. Violation whistle was first.

Oops. Quite right. Well, ignore the easy case I mistakenly brought up. :o

If the whistle for the violation is clearly first, you have no choice but to move on. By the same token, if the TO whistle was first, grant the TO. If there's any doubt, sprint over to your partner and decide what the two of you have.

I grant the timeout. Any time a team is willing to trade a timeout for a single possession, I'll go out of my way to accommodate.

But seriously, I can see my partner's arm swing. If his fifth arm swing hasn't completed when the coach asks, why wouldn't you grant it?

I just don't see the benefit of being a hard *** in this situation. Same as in the other thread.