Time OUt - TO ?

[Jurassic Referee]

Once the official grants it, the team has to take it. Case book play 5.8.3SitE.

[Junker]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Once the official grants it, the team has to take it. Case book play 5.8.3SitE.

Exactly. I know of at least one official that has booted this in his career (I'm sitting here smiling sheepishly.

[BEAREF]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Once the official grants it, the team has to take it. Case book play 5.8.3SitE.

IMO, this casebook play doesn't apply to the situation in the original post. Wouldn't this apply more to when you grant a TO to a request from a coach/player when their team doesn't have any left? I think it this situation I have an inadvertant whistle and resume play at POI.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BEAREF

IMO, this casebook play doesn't apply to the situation in the original post. Wouldn't this apply more to when you grant a TO to a request from a coach/player when their team doesn't have any left? I think it this situation I have an inadvertant whistle and resume play at POI.

That case play said that the official erroneously granted a TO. In the initial post of this thread, MWI said that his partner granted a TO, possibly erroneously if you believe the coach. According to the rules though, it doesn't matter whether the coach was actually calling a TO or not. All that matters is that you actually granted the TO. You might not like the ruling(I don't) but if you don't follow it, you're ignoring a definitive case play completely. And making up your own rules.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Once the official grants it, the team has to take it. Case book play 5.8.3SitE.

In this situation, I read the case being that Team B was requesting a timeout in a situation where they should not be granted one. I read on that once a timeout is granted it can not be revoked, but is it really granted if it was never requested?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Splute

In this situation, I read the case being that Team B was requesting a timeout in a situation where they should not be granted one. I read on that once a timeout is granted it can not be revoked, but is it really granted if it was never requested?

Go back and read the original post. The official granted team A a timeout. Granted! He may have granted the TO erroneously but he did grant the TO.

[Splute]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Go back and read the original post. The official granted team A a timeout. Granted! He may have granted the TO erroneously but he did grant the TO.

I guess what I am asking about is in case rule 5-8-3E it states that Team B was granted a TO in a situation where the official should not have granted it. In my mind that means the coach requested a TO and was granted a TO, give it erroneously and now must live with it. No question on that. but.....

My question is, if the coach did not actually request a TO, does this situation actually apply?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Splute

My question is, if the coach did not actually request a TO, does this situation actually apply?

Yes, you erroneously granted the TO. Now both you and that coach have to live with it. The case play says that it can't revoked after you grant it.

Again, I personally don't like that ruling. But....it is a ruling.

[tmp44]

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Go back and read the original post. The official granted team A a timeout. Granted! He may have granted the TO erroneously but he did grant the TO.

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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!

[mick]

Originally Posted by Rich Fronheiser

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!

I'm with you, Rich.

[JRutledge]

I am with Mick.

Peace

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

In what way?

[Splute]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

In what way?

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.