Time OUt - TO ?
 

We had this happen last night. Team A in controf ball. Partner think he hears TO from bench, I know should of seen it, and grants team A TO... When he gets to bench coach said she did not call TO, but was saying POP OUT...Partner then gets teams back on court and we resume play without charging TO.. I told him I thought we needed to grant TO once it is awarded...Thoughts.

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. ;)

Those situations are a nightmare.

A good pregame - and generally more so with female coach's who TEND to have lower vocals - remind them a visible TO signal is really needed.

It amazes me how many sounds drifting around a basketball court sound to me like "time out"!

I did the same this year.....

Coach is setting up a half-court play with his hand in the air and all five fingers extended yelling "5-Out"......

I grand the time out only to recognize my mistake...I compounded it by just inbounding the ball and moving on, I wasn't going to stick him with a TO he didn't want......Told him he needed a new name and signal for that play though....

He didn't ask for a time out -- this situation is far different than a defensive player or coach getting an unwarranted timeout. THEN I'd grant it.

It's an inadvertant whistle, or at least that's how I'm treating it.

I agree....I'm not going to force a coach to take a timeout that he did not want OR ask for. Just simply rule inadvertant and move on. It's not a big deal...IMHO

It's also not the <b>rule</b>. You're making up your own rule because you don't like the one we are stuck with. That's wrong.

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.

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?:rolleyes:

That case play said that the official <b>erroneously</b> granted a TO. In the initial post of this thread, MWI said that his partner <b>granted</b> a TO, <b>possibly</b> 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.

Go back and read the original post. The official <b>granted</b> team A a timeout. Granted! He may have <b>granted</b> the TO <b>erroneously</b> 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?

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

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

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.