So, would you grant the coach's request for a TO after the other team goes on that 8-0 run? Remember, the coach requested it before the game started, and the run didn't happen until the 3rd quarter. Since you say nothing is mentioned in the rules about the interval of time between the request and granting, would you allow this?

Let me add another wrinkle - let's say the team has already used their TO allotment. Since you are granting the request, do you also assess the T for requesting an excessive TO?

Certainly.

At some point it becomes a complete waste of time to argue something. That's where this thread is at. If you don't agree with something posted on this forum, the easiest thing to do is to take it to your Association rules interpreter or, even better, somebody from your applicable state rules governing body. I suggest that would be the best course of action for DC_12 to follow. Hopefully he will check back in here with his answer.

If you don't agree with those sources, you're in the wrong bidness.

Btw, this particular situation has come up several times before on this forum. Surprise, surprise....

My policy is to grant timeouts when they are legally requested, and only then. So yes, tell him he needs to reqeust the timeout at the appropriate time, but thank him for the "heads up" and that you will look to him after shot #1.

There are many cases in which a coach could tell you he wants a TO at _________. (fill in the blank). IMHO, it's best to not grant all requests for a time into the future, because then you have less to worry about, and are backed up by using the rule book. You are not there to coach - you are there to referee. A coach's job is to request a TO when he wants one.

Have the coach reqeust the TO when s/he wants it, and that pre-requests will not be honoured. However, you can acknowledge the "heads up".

I was doing a provincial final one year when a coach yelled out "five out". When the team didn't respond, he yelled it again. I gave him the TO. After the game, the evaluator, in his own way, gave the coach sh!t for having a play called "five out".

As fro crowd noise, visual requests are valid requests. Sound doesn't interfere with light. ;)

Please don't spell in metric. It gives me a headache. Thanks. :)

Yor welcome.

Canadian Reply
 

I understand what you're saying and you are correct, as you already knew.

Bottom line is this (to all, not just you): a request can be made at any time. It's up to the official to either grant or not grant the request. The official uses the rule to determine if s/he should grant the TO. There are four possibilities in the 2x2 matrix:

1. Properly granting the request (request granted)
   - eg: Team A has inbounds player control of the ball + Coach A requests a TO + TO is granted
2. Properly denying the request (ie. request denied)
   - eg: Team A has inbounds player control of the ball + Coach B requests a TO + TO is denied
3. Improperly granting the request (ie. shouldn't've been granted)
   - eg: Team A has inbounds team control of the ball and the ball is being passed when Coach A requests a TO + it is granted
4. Improperly denying the request (ie. should have been granted)
   - eg: Team A has inbounds player control of the ball + Coach A requests a TO + TO is NOT granted

If a coach requests a TO, and just after the request, his player loses player control of the ball, an opponent steals the ball and is on a breakaway for a game winning basket in the state championship with the B player likely to get a full scholarship to (insert your favourite NCAA team), the TO request shall be granted. A good official will have his whistle as soon as s/he can, and not care what happens to the B player and the breakaway.

American Reply
 

I understand what you're saying and you are correct, as you already knew.

Bottom line is this (to all, not just you): a request can be made at any time. It's up to the official to either grant or not grant the request. The official uses the rule to determine if s/he should grant the TO. There are four possibilities in the 2x2 matrix:

1. Properly granting the request (request granted)
   - eg: Team A has inbounds player control of the ball + Coach A requests a TO + TO is granted
2. Properly denying the request (ie. request denied)
   - eg: Team A has inbounds player control of the ball + Coach B requests a TO + TO is denied
3. Improperly granting the request (ie. shouldn't've been granted)
   - eg: Team A has inbounds team control of the ball and the ball is being passed when Coach A requests a TO + it is granted
4. Improperly denying the request (ie. should have been granted)
   - eg: Team A has inbounds player control of the ball + Coach A requests a TO + TO is NOT granted

If a coach requests a TO, and just after the request, his player loses player control of the ball, an opponent steals the ball and is on a breakaway for a game winning basket in the state championship with the B player likely to get a full scholarship to (insert your favorite NCAA team), the TO request shall be granted. A good official will have his whistle as soon as s/he can, and not care what happens to the B player and the breakaway.

Now I have a migraine. :(

The only upside is that I get to take more meds. :)

"Sir, I have a pre request....Everytime the closely guarded count/inbounding count gets to 4, I want a time out!":D



FWIW, I've never pre requested a TO before, but I have told the official (when he is reporting a foul) that I will be requesting one if B1 misses the FT and we secure the rebound. I have also "heads up'ed" an official when we were going to run an "funny looking play". Never had a problem with either.

Kidding aside, there's absolutely no difference between this request and the other ones. Or maybe some of the other distinguished posters think that it's solely their choice when it comes to choosing what pre-TO requests they should grant or not grant.:rolleyes:

You can't have it all ways.

Bitter much?

Well, there are 3 differences -

The first difference is the rule says one request gets one grant. You cannot have 1 request that gets granted at multiple times, as this coach is expecting. So if he had said I want a TO the first time the inbounds count gets to 4 we have a different story, leading to the second difference

This is a stupid tactic by the coach. The first time the count gets to 4 on an inbound play he could be up by 1 with 4 seconds left and no time outs left. Why would a coach open himself up to a T by pre-requesting a TO in this sitch?

Finally, if the coach makes this request before the game I cannot legally grant it, since timeouts cannot be granted prior to the ball becoming live.

A little more seriously, if you're standing by the bench on the second FT and he gets up to request a TO on the make just give it to him. If his guard is slowly bringing the ball up the backcourt without pressure and he gets up to request a TO when he gets to halfcourt just give it to him.

If you don't trust the coach or you're the nervous type look at him again before blowing the whistle.

If anything funny, unexpected or different happens between these pre-requests and the granting of the timeout then don't grant it.

It's really not that hard.

Say what?:confused:

I really could give a damn less what you think, to be brutally honest. We've gone over this particular play before several times here. I've also taken the time to check it out further, also before. So......how you or anybody else outside my particular area wants to call this play is completely irrelevant to me personally.

No one is saying that you <b>have</b> to call this play any particular way. All that is being said is that, in <b>our</b> opinion, your particular stance is completely and equivocably wrong, rules-wise and practice-wise. Don't let that influence you though. Hey, what difference does it really make really if no one in this thread agrees with you? Just keep calling what you want to call. Who cares? Shrug.

Soooooo.....does that mean that you <b>WILL</b> actually grant that pre-request for a TO the <b>first</b> time that the inbounds or closely guarded count gets to 4?

If so....silly monkey. Shrug.