The Official Forum
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Time Out (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/51323-time-out.html)

Adam Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:28pm
I don't have my book here, but the case play is what gives permission to grant the timeout. Why would it give permission to do what's already beend one, if as you say, "granted" means actually reporting the TO.
Now, in a blow-out, it's no big deal either way. In a tight game, however, you could have just allowed B to set up a press, new defense, get quick coaching instructions, etc., and B gets all this without burning a TO. I don't know if that's why the Fed rules this way, but it's why I like it.

fiasco Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 640996)
I don't have my book here, but the case play is what gives permission to grant the timeout. Why would it give permission to do what's already beend one, if as you say, "granted" means actually reporting the TO.
Now, in a blow-out, it's no big deal either way. In a tight game, however, you could have just allowed B to set up a press, new defense, get quick coaching instructions, etc., and B gets all this without burning a TO. I don't know if that's why the Fed rules this way, but it's why I like it.
It does not "give permission" to grant the timeout. It says you have to honor the timeout since you've already granted it.

The point I'm bringing up is what if you haven't granted it?

Adam Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 640997)
It does not "give permission" to grant the timeout. It says you have to honor the timeout since you've already granted it.

The point I'm bringing up is what if you haven't granted it?
I worded that poorly. Why would it tell you to do what you've already done? Of course, once you report it you can no longer revoke it. To me, the simplest answer here is that it's telling you once you've stopped the clock in response to the coach's request, you have to grant the TO.

When I said "permission" I meant as opposed to NCAA, where this is clearly not the rule.

fiasco Wed Dec 09, 2009 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells (Post 641002)
To me, the simplest answer here is that it's telling you once you've stopped the clock in response to the coach's request, you have to grant the TO.
I don't see where it says that at all.

Can you show me where it says that?

"5.8.3 SITUATION I: A1 is dribbling the ball in his/her backcourt when: (a) the Team B head coach requests and is erroneously granted a time-out by an official.
RULING: In (a), Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was requested and granted; once granted it cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B."

Scratch85 Wed Dec 09, 2009 01:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 641005)
I don't see where it says that at all.

Can you show me where it says that?

"5.8.3 SITUATION I: A1 is dribbling the ball in his/her backcourt when: (a) the Team B head coach requests and is erroneously granted a time-out by an official.
RULING: In (a), Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was requested and granted; once granted it cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B."
5-8-3, 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, . . .

If your an official and the clock was running and you stopped the clock because a player/head coach requested a time-out, I think by rule 5-8-3 you just granted a time out.

My $.02.

fiasco Wed Dec 09, 2009 01:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scratch85 (Post 641010)
5-8-3, 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, . . .

If your an official and the clock was running and you stopped the clock because a player/head coach requested a time-out, I think by rule 5-8-3 you just granted a time out.

My $.02.
If you're an official and the clock was running and you stopped the clock because you thought you saw a travel but you realized you really didn't, did you, by rule, just call a travel?

zm1283 Wed Dec 09, 2009 01:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 641012)
If you're an official and the clock was running and you stopped the clock because you thought you saw a travel but you realized you really didn't, did you, by rule, just call a travel?
Yes. You better not be stopping the clock and calling nothing.

I did this last year on accident and came here for the same advice. If you blow the whistle in response to a request for a timeout, you have to grant it, even if the defense asked for it. If the offensive coach complains, just tell him you messed it up and move on.

fiasco Wed Dec 09, 2009 01:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by zm1283 (Post 641016)
Yes. You better not be stopping the clock and calling nothing.
Then why is there such thing as an inadvertent whistle? Personally, I'd rather get the call right than keep myself from looking bad.

Quote:
If you blow the whistle in response to a request for a timeout, you have to grant it, even if the defense asked for it.
I understand the argument. But I have yet to see this argument backed up by rule.

Scratch85 Wed Dec 09, 2009 01:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 641018)
Then why is there such thing as an inadvertent whistle? Personally, I'd rather get the call right than keep myself from looking bad.



I understand the argument. But I have yet to see this argument backed up by rule.

IMO, the rule that backs it up is 5-8-3 and the case play 5.8.3E gives us an interpretation to apply when things are a bit screwed up.

If there was a case play that said, "if you think you saw a travel and you blew your whistle but you decided it wasn't a travel, you must go ahead and call the travel," then yes, I would go ahead and call a travel.

bob jenkins Wed Dec 09, 2009 02:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 641012)
If you're an official and the clock was running and you stopped the clock because you thought you saw a travel but you realized you really didn't, did you, by rule, just call a travel?
That's analogous to "the coach stood up, so I thought s/he was going to request a TO, so I blew the whistle" or "the coach yelled for play "five out" and I thought s/he said "time out" so I blew the whistle." Each of those is an inadvertant whistle and the game resumes.

If the coach says "time out" and you blow the whistle because that's what the coach said, then you've granted the TO.

Back In The Saddle Wed Dec 09, 2009 03:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasco (Post 640973)
Let's say it's a close game, and you use this procedure, and as Team A is inbouding the ball, Coach B starts screaming that he called time out. Do you still think it's an acceptable way to handle it?

Thinking about it, it seems reasonable that you could go to Coach B at the next available opportunity and say "Coach, your first timeout request was invalid, since it came while Team A had the ball. By rule, it was an inadvertent whistle. And since you didn't call timeout while the ball was dead after I blew the whistle, I didn't grant you a timeout."

You would be within the rules to do this, but is it good game management, seeing as though Coach B is likely to blow his stack?
No. Notice I said "that situation". Meaning in the specific instance you cited, what you did worked. From a game management point of view. And worked is good. However, it was incorrect and directly contradicts the case play that has been quoted.

Don't get hung on up whether or not you "granted" the time out. It's not really a relevant argument. A time out was requested. You blew your whistle, the ball is now dead. A time out request by either team during a dead ball must be granted. The coach still wants the time out. And now he's entitled to it. You're just going to have to eat this one.

BillyMac Wed Dec 09, 2009 07:10pm
Inadvertent Whistles ...
 
Even if you immediately state "inadvertent whistle", the ball is now dead, and either team can request, and be granted a timeout during a dead ball. Inadvertent whistle doesn't cover up the error.

Timeout requests are one of those situations where "metric" rules are a little better than the NFHS rules.

Now let me tell you about real inadvertent whistles, A1 fouling A2 during a rebound situation. Believe it, or not, this has happened twice to me in twenty-nine years.

Back In The Saddle Thu Dec 10, 2009 01:48am
It's happened to me once. The visiting team had two different color jerseys. One was silver, the other was the same shade of red as my face after I realized I'd just called a foul for one teammate fouling another. ;)

BillyMac Thu Dec 10, 2009 07:20pm
There Must Be A Definition ???
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle (Post 641214)
I'd just called a foul for one teammate fouling another.
Good luck finding that under Rule 4 - Definitions - Fouls.

However, what if two teammates start screaming f-bombs at each other, or take a swing at each other, and make contact, during a live ball? What type of fouls are these?

APG Thu Dec 10, 2009 07:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 641500)
Good luck finding that under Rule 4 - Definitions - Fouls.

However, what if two teammates start screaming f-bombs at each other, or take a swing at each other, and make contact, during a live ball? What type of fouls are these?
Flagrant technical fouls


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:23am.
Page 3 of 4 12 3 4
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1