Timeout situation

[Coach Bill]

Varsity girls last night:

There was a loose ball on the floor and one of the girls pounced on it and her bench quickly called for a timeout before an opponent could tie her up. One official blew his whistle and granted the timeout, and then another official ran in and said that it wasn't the head coach calling for the timeout. A brief huddle and then they decided to go to the possession arrow. Was this handled correctly?

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Varsity girls last night:

There was a loose ball on the floor and one of the girls pounced on it and her bench quickly called for a timeout before an opponent could tie her up. One official blew his whistle and granted the timeout, and then another official ran in and said that it wasn't the head coach calling for the timeout. A brief huddle and then they decided to go to the possession arrow. Was this handled correctly?

By rule, correct about the TO not being called by the HC. Once whistle is blown, you must still grant the TO if HC wants it.

POI instead of AP on "Accidental Whistle." In this sitch POI does not sound like AP.

[MathReferee]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Varsity girls last night:

There was a loose ball on the floor and one of the girls pounced on it and her bench quickly called for a timeout before an opponent could tie her up. One official blew his whistle and granted the timeout, and then another official ran in and said that it wasn't the head coach calling for the timeout. A brief huddle and then they decided to go to the possession arrow. Was this handled correctly?

POI for inadvertant whistle.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Varsity girls last night:

There was a loose ball on the floor and one of the girls pounced on it and her bench quickly called for a timeout before an opponent could tie her up. One official blew his whistle and granted the timeout, and then another official ran in and said that it wasn't the head coach calling for the timeout. A brief huddle and then they decided to go to the possession arrow. Was this handled correctly?

I'll take a stab.
No.
Accidental whistles always go to point of interruption -- 4-36-1. If there had been no team control, then AP arrow would apply, but not here, if it happened as your sitch describes.
BTW, just another of the long line of reasons I wish they'd change it so that only a player on the floor may request a timeout. I don't think that'll happen, though.

[slow whistle]

As a side note is anyone else running in in that situation to tell your partner that the HC is not the one who called the TO if the whole bench is yelling for it? Unless the HC is adamant that he didn't call it (which I'm guessing he would not be in this situation because he keeps the ball and probably wouldn't be quick enough on his feet to consider the whole IW/POI) and I know for sure that that is the case, I'm letting my partner go ahead with granting the TO. Otherwise you basically give them what they wanted without charging them the TO. Agree with others though that this is an awful rule (HC allowed to request TO) that I wish they would change immediately!

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Varsity girls last night:

There was a loose ball on the floor and one of the girls pounced on it and her bench quickly called for a timeout before an opponent could tie her up. One official blew his whistle and granted the timeout, and then another official ran in and said that it wasn't the head coach calling for the timeout. A brief huddle and then they decided to go to the possession arrow. Was this handled correctly?

There wasn't another official signalling the held ball at approximately the same time that the other official was granting the TO was there? Just wondering if they didn't huddle and decide that we had a held ball at approximately the same time as the IW, so let's go with the held ball. I would hope that one of three varsity officials would know that you go to POI on an IW.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

As a side note is anyone else running in in that situation to tell your partner that the HC is not the one who called the TO if the whole bench is yelling for it? Unless the HC is adamant that he didn't call it (which I'm guessing he would not be in this situation because he keeps the ball and probably wouldn't be quick enough on his feet to consider the whole IW/POI) and I know for sure that that is the case, I'm letting my partner go ahead with granting the TO. Otherwise you basically give them what they wanted without charging them the TO. Agree with others though that this is an awful rule (HC allowed to request TO) that I wish they would change immediately!

Agreed, although I don't like the idea of allowing them to benefit and not get charged the TO even if he does insist he didn't call it.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Coach Bill

Varsity girls last night:

There was a loose ball on the floor and one of the girls pounced on it and her bench quickly called for a timeout before an opponent could tie her up. One official blew his whistle and granted the timeout, and then another official ran in and said that it wasn't the head coach calling for the timeout. A brief huddle and then they decided to go to the possession arrow. Was this handled correctly?

Happened last nite: From T (2 person) across the court, I hear the head coach yell, "Time! Time!", but had just whistled to bust that coach's girl for an obvious 3 seconds. Killing the play, I, facing the coach from between the circles, asked, "Coach, were you asking for a timeout?" I thought there was a chance she was requesting a TO to avoid a 3 second violation, which I've never really seen before. She responded, "No"; (she was apparently telling her players they had time on the clock before needing to shoot). I said, "Okay", then called the three seconds, and we went the other way with an OOB.
She would have been better off to just say, "Yes." But I guess she didn't know what I had when I whistled.
Goofy. But I'm the last person to say I've seen it all.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Agreed, although I don't like the idea of allowing them to benefit and not get charged the TO even if he does insist he didn't call it.

Had a similar situation several years ago where Team A down by three, scores with approx 5 seconds left to go down by a point. I am C opposite and right away I am looking for Team A HC to request a TO. I look and he is jumping up and down with his hands over his head and appearing to me to be signalling a TO, although it was so loud I could not hear what he was screaming. So I run in and grant a TO.....BUT....he was out of timeouts!!! Of course he swore up and down that he was signalling to his team what defense to set-up. We huddled and decided that since I didn't know for sure this is what he was doing we could not tech them so we went with IW and gave Team B the ball for throw-in. Fortunately they got it in and ended up winning, but I learned two valuable lessons that day:

1) Late in the game ALWAYS know how many timeouts each team has left - one of my partners had just granted Team A their last a few moments before and didn't tell his partners, but now I make it a point to find out for myself.

2) Do not grant a time-out unless you are 100% (or at least 83.216% IF they have TO's remaining) that this is what they are signalling/calling for!

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Agreed, although I don't like the idea of allowing them to benefit and not get charged the TO even if he does insist he didn't call it.

I agree with SlowWhistle and Snaqs about making sure that it wasn't the HC that requested the TO. I would be very surprised if one of my partners came in to try and change my call in this situation.

But Snaqs, this situation is different from most situations where you have voiced your opinion about not getting charged the TO. In this sitch, the coach hasn't done anything that you are allowing him to benefit from. He was just standing there "minding his own business."

I agree with you about not letting them off the hook when the HC calls a TO without possession and is erroneously granted that TO. But I am not sure I agree in this sitch. IMO, I would consider it an IW and only grant a TO if either coach (or player) requested one.

Of course, I've had time to think about.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

1) Late in the game ALWAYS know how many timeouts each team has left - one of my partners had just granted Team A their last a few moments before and didn't tell his partners, but now I make it a point to find out for myself.

2) Do not grant a time-out unless you are 100% (or at least 83.216% IF they have TO's remaining) that this is what they are signalling/calling for!

1 shouldn't matter, other than awareness. If you know he's out you're less likely to grant a phantom timeout. But if he's requesting it, grant it regardless of what he has left.

2. I want to be 100% sure anyway, because I don't want to have any doubt when he tells me he didn't want one. There are lots of situations in a game where a coach would just love to have you kill the ball and not charge him a TO.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

I agree with SlowWhistle and Snaqs about making sure that it wasn't the HC that requested the TO. I would be very surprised if one of my partners came in to try and change my call in this situation.

But Snaqs, this situation is different from most situations where you have voiced your opinion about not getting charged the TO. In this sitch, the coach hasn't done anything that you are allowing him to benefit from. He was just standing there "minding his own business."

I agree with you about not letting them off the hook when the HC calls a TO without possession and is erroneously granted that TO. But I am not sure I agree in this sitch. IMO, I would consider it an IW and only grant a TO if either coach (or player) requested one.

Of course, I've had time to think about.

You're right. I don't like it, but you're right. This one is on the officials for granting a TO requested by the wrong person. This is one you just have to eat, I think, and if the coach doesn't want the TO, put it back in play POI.

[Adam]

BTW, judging from this thread and a few others, I think the NFHS needs to make POI a POE next year. Drive it home that an IW does not necessarily mean AP. Good grief.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

1 shouldn't matter, other than awareness. If you know he's out you're less likely to grant a phantom timeout. But if he's requesting it, grant it regardless of what he has left.

2. I want to be 100% sure anyway, because I don't want to have any doubt when he tells me he didn't want one. There are lots of situations in a game where a coach would just love to have you kill the ball and not charge him a TO.

But 1) does matter for the very reason you give yourself - the phantom timeout which is what I had - or allegedly had, still not 100% convinced that he wasn't signalling timeout, but I digress. If you know he is out you are only going to grant it if you are positive that is what he is calling for. Agree if he calls it give it to him regardless, but there will be no question that is what he wanted.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

BTW, judging from this thread and a few others, I think the NFHS needs to make POI a POE next year. Drive it home that an IW does not necessarily mean AP. Good grief.

+1

I can't remember who's byline it is but I love the,

"AP is almost never the right answer" statement.