Putting Time on the Clock for Requested Time Out

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by TrojanHorse

Just an observation, as an official, knowing the game situation and all, shouldn't you be anticipating some kind of TO request by the losing team. Especially being that you are facing the table. I think its just a matter of being aware so that extra time doesn't run off.

With that being said, the coach should have been more aware of the officials that are closer to him. The coach should have been requesting the timeout as the new lead is running by. The coach should have made it more well known what his wishes were. I have in many situations told the official if there is a make/miss situation that I will want a TO. Many times they tell me that they are aware, but I will have to repeat my request once the play occurs. All in all, the coach knows what he wants and didn't make it 100% clear until more time ran off the clock.

Actually, the coach was trying to clearly articulate the timeout in this case. The official just wanted to make sure that he had the correct team (and person requesting it).

In this real game situation (not involving yours truly), apparently the calling official put 4.3 seconds back on the clock. An "observer" (do NOT read as official observer, but rather an individual watching the game) indicated that the following took place:
1. The clock started properly on the missed shot,
2. The team brought the ball up court,
3. The official signaled his for the timeout by raising an open hand and sounding his whistle,
4. The clock operator properly stopped the clock instantly at 1.7 seconds,
5. The officials conferenced and put 4.3 seconds back onto the clock.

The only explanation that I could come up with to describe what happened is that one of the officials (calling official) likely observed the clock when calling the timeout. It took some amount of time from recognition of the official blowing his whistle and the stopping of the clock. The official deemed that he had seen the clock at 4.3 seconds when he first recognized the request for the timeout. It took a second or so to call the timeout and another second or so to recognize the request.

My question back to the observer was "where was the ball put back into play?" If the official was in the process of recognizing the timeout at 4.3 seconds, obviously the ball should have been put in play back significantly further into the backcourt (.7 seconds worth of time to pass/dribble) than the ball was at the 1.7 second mark.

There could have been all kinds of explanations as to what really happened -- a second official MAY have actually raised his hand to recognize the timeout, the official MAY have actually recognized the timeout at the 4.3 second mark, etc.

I was merely trying to guess as to WHY the officials may have done something that did not seem to make sense to a potentially-biased observer.

I try to quickly glance in these situations at the coaches (generally a quick look "through the players" from C or T will capture both benches -- following a missed FT the C would have been opposite the table and should have been able to see both benches/coaches). I have no idea why 1 - 2 SECONDS would have passed between the time the timeout was formally recognized by the officials AND the time the timer actually stopped the clock. If a coach asks for a timeout, it should not take more than a 1/2 second or so to glance to confirm it is the HC and make the call. 2.6 seconds tells me that SOMETHING else likely happened differently than the reporting "observer" was describing.