Time Out
 

First half of a girls game and the coach yells in the officials ear for a time out. Without thinking the official blows his whistle to stop play, and then realizes that the coach who ask for the time out didn't have possession of the ball.

According to the case book *5.8.3 "....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."

My question is was the time out "Granted" by simply blowing your whistle?

When you blow the whistle, the ball becomes dead. You have no other choice but to.

To play devil's advocate... upon blowing whistle and recognizing the fact could you rule an inadvertant whistle?

Yes, you technical rule inadvertent whistle and then you grant the timeout. But it's typically wrapped into one.

-Josh

MOFFICIAL:

To answer your question:

NFHS: NO


NCAA: YES

MTD, Sr.

Doesn't matter, because now the ball is dead and either coach may request a TO. Either the coach still wants it, so you give it to him; or he was just trying to stop the clock, don't reward this by stopping the clock and not charging him with a TO.

That is what we thought as well....what would prevent a coach from trying that tactic again if they weren't charged a time out. Obviously a Technical foul if they abused that rule, but I feel that when the whistle blows you are awarding that team a time out even if it is erroneously awarded.

This is undeniably true. Yet, for me it revives the question of when the timeout is actually granted. Example: The accepted practice is to grant a timeout when the request is made by a player going out of bounds, even though the whistle does not blow until after the player lands. An editorial change, perhaps a definition of when a timeout is "granted" would be nice.

Actually, 5.8.3 Sit E covers this exactly. Once the TO is erroneously granted, it is charged to the team and it cannot be revoked. Iow, you don't get a chance to ask the coach if they still want the TO; it's been granted.

Since it is also an inadvertant whistle situation, the ball will be put back in play using POI. If there was team control, the ball is given back the team last in control. If it was during a FT or throw-in, the ball will be put back in play that way. If there was no team control, then AP is used.

I know this because I own this rule. :(

I know this, I was just talking through the logic of not giving him an option.

I mentioned this a couple of years ago:

Had a coach who requested a TO when the opposing team had the ball at its disposal for a end-line throw-in after a successful free throw (and subs). I bone-headedly blew my whistle. As I should I granted his time-out. After the game the coach told me he had done this in other games but I was the first official to enforce the TO. He said in the previous games he would use the momemtary interruption to set up his press.

Inadverdent Whistle on Time Out
 

The scenario we are discussing is: A whistle was blown with Team B dribbling in the backcourt with no real "play" occuring. The official clearly had not granted the time out; he raised his arm with the whistle and before awarding Team A the time out; play stopped. He had two options: Award the time out to Team A or declare "inadvertant whistle"... In my conversations, in polling fellow officials:

It seems the jury is still out; but the ones I have polled said that judgement is huge here. But, inadvertant whistles are part of the game; and that as long as, the pace of play was slow; to use inadvertant whistle. If we blow the whistle during a "play" you will probably have to award the time out and 'suffer the consequences"; but as a whole, the officials I have talked with are not "definitive" in they're opinions.

They should be, the case play is clear. By blowing the whistle for a timeout request, you are granting the timeout.

If the coach requested a TO, and the official blows the whistle to stop play, that official has granted the TO. There is no judgement on this play; the case play is clear that the TO is granted, and it is also an inadvertant whistle. The judgement comes in as to the official not being aware of the situation and blowing the whistle in that case, especially if "the pace of play was slow". If the coach is requesting a TO when they are not entitled to one, the official should simply not blow the whistle, or tell the coach they are not entitled to one at that point.

Simply calling an inadvertant whistle and not granting the TO is setting aside a rule to avoid embarrasment by the official. Too bad - the official should be aware of the game situation and not acknowledged the request in the first place.

I hate disagreeing with a fellow Cub fan, though. :)

Try this. If you blow the whistle, the coach gets the timeout. Now that the ball is dead, ask the coach if he wants a timeout "now". If he says yes, that's his second request and you give him two timeouts and charge him for two. Since he never said "30", he gets charged for two fulls. The best part would be if the first one was his last and now he gets a T for the second.

Yeah - try that. I dare ya'.

Gotcha...I see your reasoning here! No problem on the Cubs Fan thing...This is our year!

Good reasoning...I looked at the Case Book and did not see that one had to grant the time out...the case book clearly states that "if granted"...so, not to be weak in the knees here; it just seemed this official, didn't check off on his time-out and could have resolved the issue with an inadvertant whistle...

Even without the case play, I'm granting this once I blow my whistle. The coach caused me to blow the whistle by requesting a TO.

1. If he still wants it, you have to give it to him as now the ball is dead.
2. If he just wanted the clock to stop, you should charge him the TO so he can't keep doing it.

Yea, I'm just picking nits. :)

In NCAA, it is simply an inadvertant whistle, no TO is granted at that time, but since the ball is now dead, either team could still request and be granted a TO. This is what my fellow Cub Fan is suggesting. Unfortunately, you cannot do that under Fed. rules. I know we've had discussions in the past as to when a TO is actually granted. Some say it is granted even before the whistle is blown, which allows for the situation where a coach may request one during a quick sequence where they would be allowed, but by the time the whistle blows the situation may have changed (say, for example, an attempt at a quick inbounds after a basket). But, once an official hears the request and blows the whistle, the TO is granted. It may seem "fair" to not grant it, but that's not allowed. It is similar to a team asking for an exessive TO at the end of the game - some officials say they would ignore the request to "save" the T, but that is not allowed. The request is granted at the expense of the T.

But #2 could be the reason they put that case in there, so that coaches do not take advantage of talking an official into stopping the clock to set up a press, for example.

The jury is not out at all......

NCAA - inadvertant whistle
NFHS - Grant the time out

Seems like I've heard that 100 times before. :cool:

101.

But who's counting? :(

I had this situation happen to me last night, and I want to know what you guys think.

I blew my whistle for a timeout for Team B while Team A had the ball. The second I did it, I knew I screwed up.

Instead of turning around and looking at Team B's coach and seeing if he still wanted a timeout, I got the ball back as fast as I could, and had Team A inbound it. Coach B never said a word.

Technically, my whistle was inadvertent, so in order to grant a "real" timeout, Coach B would have had to request a new one. So I didn't go out of my way to see if he wanted one.

Now, the game was not close, and this was not a pressure situation, so I'm not sure I explored all of the ramifications of handling it this way, but what do you guys think? How do you think this procedure would be received in a close game?

When you blew the whistle did you say anything or do any type of mechanic?

I turned to the table (I was right next to it), pointed to my chest with two thumbs and said "inadvertent whistle." I didn't make a spectacle of it, though.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. ;)

There Must Be A Definition ???
 

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

Live Ball Contact, Technical ???
 

Maybe for the f-bombs, but for contact fouls during a live ball?

Rule 4-19-1:

A personal foul is a player foul which involves illegal contact with an opponent while the ball is live...

By rule you can't call a personal foul since they aren't opponents. I'd label this as a flagrant unsporting act.

Read the definition of fighting. It doesn't specify with whom one must be fighting for it to be considered a fight. Also, it contains the phrase "regardless of contact."

It's under "accidental whistle" ;)