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?

You're right, I don't think it's an epidemic, but then again, I doubt many coaches know about this rule and how each ref would apply it. Maybe I'm wrong about that, though?

I've seen it happen a couple times but, yeah, I don't think it's an epidemic.

One more reason to return to take away the head coach's ability to request a time-out during a live ball. Let that come from the players. Allow the head coach to request only during a dead ball, possibly with the exception of following a made goal.

The amount of times either of the situations discussed occurs is no reason to take away the coaches ability to call a TO. I think when you think you here it, try to get a quick visual to confirm and then blow your whistle.

POE 3A in this year's rule book ---<i>"Coaches attempting to call a time-out during playing action are a <b>continuing problem</b>."</i>

I'm okay with, if we go to only allowing them to call a TO during a dead ball, to not make any exceptions for after a made goal. If they can get our attention quickly enough (before the ball becomes live again), let them call it.

Why are they a continuing problem? I coach BB and officiate it and very rarely have had, or have seen a problem.

You're right. There are much better reasons to take away the coaches' ability to call a TO. Like the fact that you have to divert your attention from the game to verify that it's the HC making the request. Like the fact that they get insanely pissed off when you don't hear them asking for one and act as if you've denied them some inalienable right. The fact that sometimes a coach will ask for one, just to stop the clock, then deny he asked for it? That's just one reason out of many.

I'm with BITS on this. My guess is the reason for the POE is there are too many officials granting TOs when they shouldn't.
The reason I'd like to see it go away is I'd rather not have to worry about looking at a coach standing behind me to verify it's him when there's a scrum for the ball right in front of me.

Did you read that POE? It tells you why the FED thinks it's a problem.

Btw, it's not me saying that, even though I completely agree with it. It's the NFHS rulesmakers that issue these POE's. If the NFHS says that it's a continuing problem, they're doing so from feedback received from across the country. And seeing that the NFHS issued similar POE's in the 2003-04 and 2004-05 rule books, it must be a problem that the FED thinks is on-going.

Imo, this is one of the worst rules ever. This is the most common problem with it. You've got a press going in the last minute with the ball right in front of you. The defenders are all over the dribbler. You're standing right in front of the offensive team's bench with your back to it. The crowd is noisy as hell. You <b>think</b> that you hear <i>"timeout"</i> behind you. Soooooooo......now you're supposed to turn, make sure that it's the <b>head</b> coach requesting the TO and also make sure that he really wants a TO. Don't think so. I ain't taking my eyes off the play. But.........the common sense associated with doing that sureasheck doesn't make no nevermind to the head coach. You're still gonna get the coach whining at you because he didn't <b>immediately</b> get the TO that he wanted. Or, as is being posted here, he'll say that he didn't want that TO and wasn't calling one-- even though his team benefited from the whistle.

Again, terrible rule imo.

I agree, coaches need to be more understanding, but as a coach I'll tell you, you REALLY like that rule! If they change it the coaches will just have adjust.

You mean like they did up until a few years ago. The biggest change I've noticed associated with this rule is that players no longer "echo" their coach's TO request. All season in HS, AAU, and MS, I had exactly one team consistently echo their coach's request for a TO. One.

The ball is dead after a made goal, up until the point it is at disposal, so no exception would have to be made.

I think Nevada was saying he'd consider not allowing a coach-requested TO during this particular dead ball.

Great Post
 

From Jurassic Referee: "This is one of the worst rules ever. This is the most common problem with it. You've got a press going in the last minute with the ball right in front of you. The defenders are all over the dribbler. You're standing right in front of the offensive team's bench with your back to it. The crowd is noisy as hell. You think that you hear "timeout" behind you. Now you're supposed to turn, make sure that it's the head coach requesting the TO and also make sure that he really wants a TO. Don't think so. I ain't taking my eyes off the play. But the common sense associated with doing that sureasheck doesn't make no nevermind to the head coach. You're still gonna get the coach whining at you because he didn't immediately get the TO that he wanted. Or, as is being posted here, he'll say that he didn't want that TO and wasn't calling one, even though his team benefited from the whistle. Again, terrible rule."

Jurassic Referee: Great post. Maybe one of your best, certainly one of your top one-hundred. We're both veteran officials, so we both remember a time when only players, while controlling the ball, were allowed to call, and be granted, a timeout. Since we were always facing the players, we knew which team had control of the ball, and could easily see which team was requesting a timeout. I hated this rule change from the first season it was introduced. I have discussed changing this rule back to the previous rule with my local board interpreter. He, and our state board interpreter, agree with me, but he claims the rule will never be changed back, because coaches love the rule and coaches are better represented than officials when it comes to the NFHS making rule changes.

That's exactly right. This dead ball still occurs during playing action and would require an official to divert his attention from the players on the court to recognize the TO request coming from the coach. I'm against anything that requires an official to look away from the action on the floor during play.

That might be true, but Nevada just put an official on the NFHS rules committee. :)