Officials' Time-out signal and mechanic
 

I have read the manual, searched here and on-line. Can't find the answer.

What is the proper signal/mechanic for an official's time out following an injury or other instance where I need to stop the game? Is it simply the Stop Clock signal? Do I report that to the table?

Thanks.

No need to report to the table, and yes, that's the signal.

You'll often see officials signal a "30" or pat themselves on the chest as an additional (although unnecessary, and technically incorrect) signal. I'm not recommending those, just saying you'll see them in common usage. If the reason you're stopping the game is obvious, nobody's watching you anyway. So a whistle and stop clock is quite sufficient.

GUILTY! And now, something else I will work on!

This is an easy one. Officials don't have time outs.

A quick verbal or visual communication to that side of the court is not a bad thing.

Sure, but don't you like the break, too?

Did a little more research,

"3.4.6 A. If a player is injured, an officials' time-out shall be declared..."

I think that's the only place it's mentioned.

Be careful - you don't want to be calling a T on yourself if you request over the limit... :)

So.....
 

a referee can "declare" a timeout for himself, but a coach or player must "request or ask" for one and then a referee "grants" it, right? ;)

:)
Yea, most times it'll be granted, if the Official hears or sees the request.

Assuming the coach requests the time out at the appropiate time. The official ensures that it is ok to grant (example team control belongs to the coaches team etc ) That is why a time out is not immediately granted. The official needs to ensure that he/she can grant the request.

Refer you to Rule 5.8.3

Sometimes I give 'em to the wrong coach.
There's a rule for that, too. Eh? :)

Really? Team control?

Can you please confirm 3.4.6A.

That was an example. If coach of team A requests a time out when the ball is in posession of B1 who is say dribbling (ie team control of B), the time out request cannot be granted.

Yes really

I did qualify with EXAMPLE

Yup there is a rule for most things :) I do say for all but not to start a new whole topic in this thread....

Let me add the rulling 5.8.3

Grants a players/head coach's oral or visual request for a time out such requests being granted ONLY when :
a) the ball is in control or disposal of a player of his/her team
b) the ball is dead....unless...

My point is that team control is irrelevant to awarding a timeout.

So, what happens when you blow your whistle and award the timeout to a coach whose team does not have th ball? That's what Mitch was getting at.

see my post to Mick and see rule 5.8.3. Team control is relevant

Bad call and POI. You cannot award a team for our error. or for taking advantage of the situation

No, it's not. You actually quoted the relevant part of the rule.

"Player control" is key, and yes it must be a player no that coach's team. However, "team" control is not mentioned.

A coach's team may have team control but a timeout still not be granted by rule.

Wrong. Check the case play.
Essentially, the ball is not dead and the coach can request a TO. You grant it at this point.

Ok so now you are saying that a person dribbling a ball does not have team control? If there is player control there is team control

For completenes see rule 4.12.2

Kinda, sorta, in a way BUT what's more important than TC, is that someone on the team has the ball in their possession when a TO is requested.

A1 swings the ball from the left wing to A2 on the right wing. Coach/player requests TO while the pass is in the air.
Is there TC? Yes
Should we grant the TO? No

BTW, dashes (-) relate to rules & dots (.) relate to casebook plays.

But there can be team control and no player control. And a TO cannot be granted when there is no player control, even though team control exists. That was Snaq's point. (And Ch1town's)

That's not what I said. I said it's possible to have team control without player control. Player control is required for a timeout. Team control is not relevant because it's not sufficient.

Please quote situation you are referring too

B1 dribbling the ball down the court. Team A coach requests TO, you blow your whistle and then realize the mistake.

Timeout is to be granted in HS rules.

There is team control during an interrupted dribble and a pass in flight. Will you be granting a time-out?

Granted I used an example, but you missed the premise that you cannot JUST grant a time out to a coach because they requested that.
this is what this thread is about NOT my example. Did I miss something?

And when the coach of Team B gets in your a$$ don't compound the mistake by whacking him/her :D

I was correcting your teminology, because it's an important distiction. Threads veer slightly off topic all the time here, so it's normal to expand on someone's thought to make sure it is clarified. In fact, this particular thread was already off topic by the time you posted the team control reference.

Using the term "team control" in reference to granting a timeout just isn't correct.

Depends. Admit your mistake, and tell him it has to be granted now. "Sorry coach, I blew it but we have to grant the TO now."

If he doesn't drop it there, I'm willing to ring him up.

No doubt, but I've seen officials go directly to the ringing up & never thought to say "sorry coach."

Granted. I should put more thought when I use an example. Your point is well taken :o

I've done it a couple hundred times myself. Nevada usually corrects me. :)

Ooh. Ouch. Sorry is the first thing out of my mouth if the other coach is so much as looking me when I report the TO. Normally, they don't care. The only time they say anything is towards the end of the game; and I've never seen "sorry" not difuse the situation immediately.

So when the Lead is bouncing the ball to the free throw shooter.......

I did and you are correct

Reference Situation 5.8.3.E .

Thank you

Touche.
"or at the disposal of." Also applies to the thrower on a throwin.

I had to get you. :D

Yeah, I had it coming. Especially in this thread. :)

Now shut up.

But if the lead is bouncing the ball at that moment, it is not yet at the disposal of the shooter/thrower. It only becomes at the disposal when it reaches the shooter/thrower (or when the ball is placed on the floor at the spot).

If it hasn't reached the thrower, and therefore is not at the thrower's disposal, then the ball is dead and the TO may be granted.

I'm offended. I thought this was the kinder, gentler forum? Is the Jurassic period resurfacing?

Good grief, you're both right. BNR's point was that I focused on player control when that is not necessarily required. However, my original point, that team control is not relevant, stands. :)

OK, new rule: During a live ball, only the player holding or dribbling the ball may request a timeout. My head will spin less that way.

It was getting too touchy-feely for a moment and I was getting dizzy.

Fixed it for ya ;)

Nope, mine was my dream for the new rule. You just ruined it and now I'm going to cry.

My badd :D

Even though it is not sufficient, I wouldn't say it is not relevant. Team control is implied by player control.

Not relevant would be like saying that the ability to be granted a timeout depends on the number of team fouls.

When the question is, "what's sufficient to call a time out," the fact that player control implies team control is irrelevant. Team control is not sufficient. Player control is.

I won't quibble with the idea that team fouls are "more irrelevant."

I would say it's not relevant because having team control has nothing to do with the ability to request a timeout.

Not only is it not sufficient, it's not even required (at disposal). Team control never matters. The fact that it's always present during player control means nothing with regard to timeouts.

Agreed. Team control is neither required, nor sufficient for a legal time out request. At best it is casually related. Sometimes.

Just a whacky analogy: A player who is holding the ball most likely has a pivot foot. But, like team control, there are cases where a time out may be granted without an established pivot foot. However, unlike team control, having a pivot foot is sufficient for a legal time out request (assuming the request comes from the holder, a player teammate or his/her head coach). So...as relevancy goes, having a pivot foot, which we would agree is completely irrelevant to time out requests, may be less irrelevant than having team control. ;)

I am glad we are so "anal" for words used in an example. Perhaps we should apply this "anality (does such a word exist?) to the rules :)


shame on me; especially when i am so pushy about the rules
I did say my example was incorrectly thought out...:o

But, team control by the other team (among other things) does preclude being granted a timeout. And that is what I read the original post to be talking about...verifying that one team has control vs the other team having control. And, the fact that the other team does have team control directly means that a team can't have a timeout.