Timeout question

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Actually, the case play states that IF a time-out request IS ERRONEOUSLY GRANTED when a team isn't entitled to ask for one, then it is charged and taken.

That's a big difference from what you wrote.

I thought I was saying the same thing. There has to be a request for there to be a granting. If there's no request, there's no granting, no matter how erroneously. Think of the coach yelling for the "Side out!" play, and the official blows the whistle to grant a TO. That's an inadvertant whistle, not a granting of a request.

In zm1283's case, the coach was making the request while the ball was on the rim, and zm correctly waited and did not grant the request at that time. Once the ball was secured by a player, zm blew the whistle to grant the TO, but there was no request being made at that moment. So if there's no request, it's an IW, correct? In an extreme example, let's say A has the ball and is passing the ball around in the front court. B's coach is frustrated about the defense and requests a TO. The official correctly does not blow the whistle for the TO. 10 seconds later, the ball gets thrown OOB, and the official grants B's request for a TO. I believe that would be incorrect, as there is no request being made at that moment.

That's the point I was trying to make, in that the period of time the request was made and ignored passed, then another period of time exisits where there is no request being made and the whistle is blown. In zm's case, he does say "maybe one second" passes, so I can see how it may be too close to ignore, it is still during that same time period, and the TO is granted. But there should be some judgement in allowing a period of time to pass, the situation changes, and therefore the period of time the request was made has passed.

[Nevadaref]

Ok, then we were thinking the same thing, but I got a different meaning from your choice of words. I took it that you were saying that the instruction was for the official to grant the TO request, despite it being made at an improper time, instead of simply ignoring it.

Thanks for clarifying.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I got a different meaning from your choice of words.

I need to take mbyron's English class. I know I ain't very good at this writin' stuff.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I need to take mbyron's English class. I know I ain't very good at this writin' stuff.

And then there was the hillbilly who wanted his son to take a class in "triggernometry" because he was the worst shot in the family.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Think of the coach yelling for the "Side out!" play, and the official blows the whistle to grant a TO. That's an inadvertent whistle, not a granting of a request.

Wasn't there a recent interpretation about this? Who can cite it first? Ready. Set. Go.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Wasn't there a recent interpretation about this? Who can cite it first? Ready. Set. Go.

There is an interpretation, but if you misheard a request for a timeout, there is no reason I see you cannot call it an inadvertent/accidental whistle.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There is an interpretation, but if you misheard a request for a timeout, there is no reason I see you cannot call it an inadvertent/accidental whistle.

I'm sure that Nevadaref will come with it eventually. The time it takes him to come up with an interpretation is inversely proportional to the age of the interpretation.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm sure that Nevadaref will come with it eventually. The time it takes him to come up with an interpretation is inversely proportional to the age of the interpretation.

5.8.3. Situation E covers this play.

In (b) covers this clearly and says you go with an accidental whistle and you do not grant the timeout.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

5.8.3. Situation E covers this play. In (b) covers this clearly and says you go with an accidental whistle and you do not grant the timeout.

Thanks JRutledge. I think that the asterisk before the case play indicates that the case play is new. That's why it took so long for Nevaderef to come up with an interpretation. If it had a been a fifteen year old interpretation, then he would have come up with it in a few seconds. According to the "Law Of Nevadaref Interpretations", the time it takes Nevadaref to come up with an interpretation is inversely proportional to the age of the interpretation.

*5.8.3 SITUATION E: 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; or (b) the Team A head coach is yelling “side out” offensive instructions to his/her team and the official stops play believing the coach requested a time-out. 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. All privileges and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams. Play will resume with a Team A throw-in nearest to where play was stopped. In (b), an accidental whistle has occurred. Team A was not requesting a time-out, and therefore, should not be granted or charged with one. Play is resumed at the point of interruption. (4-36-1; 4-36-2a)

[JRutledge]

Billy, it took me 5 minutes to find. Nothing anyone had to pull out of their hat.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm sure that Nevadaref will come with it eventually. The time it takes him to come up with an interpretation is inversely proportional to the age of the interpretation.

It also depends upon whether he is out working a post-season game.

Regional tournament this week. State tourney the next.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It also depends upon whether he is out working a post-season game. Regional tournament this week. State tourney the next.

Enjoy. I work a lot of state tournament games, from the stands. I do occasionally get a few league, or conference, tournament games, but that's the way the Peter Principle works:

"In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence. (Dr. Laurence J. Peter, 1968)

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence. (Dr. Laurence J. Peter, 1968)

... and remain there.

I actually found Peter's book a couple weeks ago, when rummaging through some old boxes. Felt a little like MTD, except I wasn't in the attic.

[UNH IM Ref]

Ok so when do we call a T for an illegal timeout call? It's only when the team has no timeouts to call right? Also can we just ignore the timeout call if we recognize the team has no timeouts to call and is it only a T if we inadvertently grant the T.O.?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by UNH IM Ref

Ok so when do we call a T for an illegal timeout call? It's only when the team has no timeouts to call right?

What else would there be?

Originally Posted by UNH IM Ref

Also can we just ignore the timeout call if we recognize the team has no timeouts to call....

I stopped you here. The answer is no.
The only time a TO request is ignored is if the team does not have the right to request one at that time. Examples, they do not have player control or disposal for a throwin. If they request a TO when they are allowed to request one, they get it. If they have no more allotted TOs, they get one anyway along with the T.