Unanswered Timeout question
 

In reading the NCAA rules concerning timeout, I didn't find a rule or play indicating to charge a timeout if you mistakenly grant a timeout. I understand NFHS does include such direction. Did I miss it or is the ncaa rule different?

This all leads to, in NFHS, must you assess a technical for an unrequested but charged timeout, (per rule)?

NCAA or NFHS?

I was talking HS. But then I read another thread which said you MUST grant it.... I would prefer the inadvertent whistle, especially when it gets confusing, and put it back in play. Guess that's not an option......

JR and several others haves sited Case Book play 5.8.3SitE.

(I should have included this in the OP.)
NCAA reads that you grant an excessive timeout, if requested, and assess a technical.

I am wondering how the wording is in NFHS, as I don't have a book at work.

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:

I concur. I have apprently been mistaken when putting the ball back in play as inadvertent whistle. I have read several similar threads on this subject that seem to say - if you hear it, you must call it, even if the coach didn't mean it - as in a coach yelling a play like "pop out" or "line out".

Wow, that is tough. That would almost make me want to take an extra second or two to get a visual as well or some confirmation before whisling a TO. But this could cause the Team an additional two seconds off the clock that they shouldnt lose either.

Hum, is that really the intent of the rule or is it really intending to force Team B to take his TO that he requested even if he shouldnt be allowed one? Rather than say the official inadvert on the whistle, Team B did not request a TO, throw in at POI....... What is the intent....

The intent of the rule is to only grant and charge time-outs which are actually requested.
Look at what 5-8-3 says. "Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official grants a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when..."

If there is no request then the there is no reason for the whistle, so it becomes an accidental whistle. The ball is put back in play at the POI.

If the team really did request a time-out, but it was at a time when by rule they could not have one, the official should have ignored the request. However, if the time-out was mistakenly granted despite the improper timing of the request then the case book instructs the official to charge it and allow the team(s) to use it.

Thanks, Nevada. As I understand it, the idea of granting and charging a timeout that one realizes was not requested is wrong and should be an inadvertant whistle. I understand the concept of granting a requested timeout in error, most likely when the other team is in possession of the ball. (Once you whistle it up, you must grant it and charge it.)

edit for typing

I totally concur and that's exactly how I read and understand that case play. To further add, if the coach states I didn't call a timeout or didn't want one, if you hit the whistle immediately and get ready to put the ball in play, there's no advantage or disadvantage gained. I would think common sense would prevail in this situation, especially when it is our responsibility to visually verify that the coach wants a timeout.

What's to stop a coach, though, from yelling for a timeout and if you don't look, denying that he called it in order to stop the clock?

HUH?? I don't understand your question. I can clarify MY mechanic and that is a coach is yelling for a timeout, I look and verify he wants one and is authorized to have one, hit the whistle and call the timeout. If the words "time out" comes out of that coaches mouth and I see and hear it. He gets the timeout and he can deny that he called the timeout for the next 30 or 60 seconds.

I'm saying that I disagree with JoetheRef that no advantage has been gained, even if you hurry with the inadvertent whistle and get the ball in play as fast as possible.

Coaches will use every little bit of the rules to gain an advantage. If a coach knows that this is how you enforce the rule and knows that you are not looking at him, he yells for timeout, and he gets lucky and you call the timeout without looking, he has stopped the clock. Then, he can deny that he ever called the timeout (because you didn't look at him to verify) and he has gained an advantage by stopping the clock.

DC, how many times have you seen this happen? You've ref'd games, you've attended games, you've probably played in a few. Have you ever seen it happen?

I doubt we are suddenly going to have an epidemic of coaches using this ploy. ;) Don't you think it already would have been tried?