Time Out

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Works for me. If the game resumed quickly and without incident, I think it was an acceptable way to handle that situation.

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?

[jdw3018]

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?

Don't make this hard or over-think it. If you blow your whistle in response to a request for a timeout, you've granted it. It's over. Most officials at some point in their career are going to grant a timeout when it's not appropriate.

The case play is clear and there's no reason to over-think the situation.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Don't make this hard or over-think it. If you blow your whistle in response to a request for a timeout, you've granted it. It's over. Most officials at some point in their career are going to grant a timeout when it's not appropriate.

The case play is clear and there's no reason to over-think the situation.

Agreed. It's a lot easier to explain to coach A that you messed up on this one. It's a very minor mistake, but own up to it and grant the timeout; that's what the rule says.

In a tight game, you could have just stopped the clock for B and given them a double benefit by not charging the TO.

[fiasco]

If you read the casebook, it says Team B is granted the timeout since "it was requested and granted."

What do you define as "granted"?

If I blow my whistle, turn to the table and say "inadvertent whistle," I haven't granted a timeout.

[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.

[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.