I agree that the case play is different from what is being discussed here.

Does the case book situation referenced here also apply to NCAA? I was at a Univ. of Pittsburgh game a few years ago when Ben Howland was still the coach. He always used a play called "One Up." He said this in a game once, and a very very very very well known official, I won't mention names, thought he was asking for a time out and granted it. Howland explained he was calling a play, and the officials gave the ball back to Pitt for a TI at POI w/o charging a time out.

Glad I'm not the only one.

The intent of the word "erroneously," in my opinion, is to refer to the time out that should not be granted when requested, but is.

The coach didn't ask for it. Why should I not treat it as an IW? It *is* an IW!

In what way?

I'm with you, Rich.

I am with Mick.

Peace

I'm w/ JRut.

Not to speak for Bob, but Rule 5.8.3 deals with granting a TO to a player/head coach's oral or visual request and then goes on to specify when it can be granted... thus
5-8-3E is an example of what happens when a TO is REQUESTED per above but at a time when it should not be allowed. It does not address an Official calling a TO that a player/head coach did not request.

Therefore I can not believe it would be the intent of the rule to penalize a team on TO's if he honestly did not call one.

The case play stated that the official <b>erroneously</b> granted a timeout. The official screwed up iow. How is that any different than what happened in the original post? The official <b>erroneously</b> granted a TO in that case too when he shouldn't have.

True and my only point of contention is that in the case sit., a TO was requested, in the OP it has not be requested.

how is this IW any different than say an IW during a loose ball or ball in flight -- we just go to POe and play on?

What I am trying to show, IMO, the Rule 5.8.3 states that a TO has to be requested ..... once that is done, it can only be granted under the conditions mentioned. If it is never requested, how can it be granted by rule?

If you believe the coach or player has requested one, then by all means enforce it, otherwise, IMO, go with IW as mentioned.

If we're going with the case play and we have to grant the TO, what if we did it when the coach has no TOs left? Are we then to grant the timeout AND assess the technical foul that goes with it if the coach never requested the timeout?

I have a hard time believing that situation is what the case play is talking about. I've always felt it's that way in the case because once you blow the whistle to grant the TO, whether that team was in control or not, now you have a dead ball and they could legally be granted the TO anyway, so they get it.

I can't see any way I'm assessing a technical because I screwed up and didn't make sure the coach was actually requesting the TO.