Time Out

[Adam]

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]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

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]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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]

Originally Posted by zm1283

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.

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]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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