No, but granting the TO request does.
NFHS rule 5-8-3--"Time out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official grants a player/head coach's <font color = red>ORAL</font> or visual request for a timeout, such request being granted only when the ball is in control of or at the disposal of a player of his/her team."
NCAA rules are exactly the same, I believe. By rule, the TO occurs when the official grants the TO request. So the sequence is TO request by coach---->granted by official if player on coach's team has player control. By rule, the clock is supposed to be stopped when the TO request is granted. What happens after the TO was granted is irrelevant in the play being discussed.

2) Basically yes, except that the official doesn't have to signal a granted TO request to stop the clock. The clock is supposed to stop when the TO request is granted instead. And that shoots your little theorem all t'hell, rules-wise.


Let me know if you can find some rules that will back up what you're saying.:)

This is what I saw as well. There was a camera angle from the endline that showed Cahill's head turn after the ball was already in the UConn player's hands.

HOWEVER, I have, on occasion, heard a timeout request when a player had control, then as he passed it, I looked to the bench to confirm that it was the HC calling timeout, and I then blew my whistle, to the chagrin of the opposing coach. It's still a valid timeout, though.

Full disclosure: I'm a UConn grad and fan.

That being said I sympathized with Cahill on this one. How many times has a coach been sitting right next to you screaming for a timeout only to have you realize it only after the 10th time? Combat pilots call it sensory overload (there are numerous examples of pilots missing a clear bandit call simply because there were too many sensory inputs) and target fixation (flying into the ground because you became fixated on the target to the exclusion of everything else). This was a key moment in the game (aren't they all?) as UConn had come back from a 12 point deficit so perhaps the officials were concentrating more on the court than coaches off it.

The problem becomes worse, in my mind, because a coach expects to be granted a timeout the first/any time they request it (that's not realistic, in my mind). As they continue to request it the frustration/tension mounts to the point where they're ready to bite your head off because you don't hear/recognize them (I look for coaches to call timeouts in certain situations, like after a several breakaway baskets by the opposition, but in others I'll admit to concentrating more on the play like in closely guarded situations - yet another development area). I try to tell players in pre-game that they know their coach's voice a lot better than we do and to request time if we're not hearing their coach for some reason.

To further Jurassic, if the timeout is to be granted upon the whistle and the clock stopped, I'm not sure why they added time back onto the clock. The answer is, I think, that when they granted the timeout the ball was in UConn's possession. They probably backed it up to the last time the ball was in Syracuse's control, but I'm not certain of NCAA rules regarding that kind of fix.

The problem is defining when the request is considered to be granted. Some say it is a mental event which occurs instantly when the request is seen/heard by the official. But some of these same officials say they give the coach the option to rescind the request if it comes too late to serve his purpose in a given situation. This is a conflict, in my opinion. Also, what if an official can hear a voice behind him, but the ball becomes dead before he turns to confirm the identity of the voice, is this one granted or not?

I don't follow this part at all.

It is rather simple. The signaling is letting everyone know you made the call that you are granting a timeout. But that does not mean you have to only grant the timeout just because you whistle is in time or at the exact time of the signal and whistle the player must be in control of the ball.

Peace

And exactly how does an official "grant" a time-out? What specific action does the official take? Is it a mental decision or a physical act which grants the request?

Absolute doo-doo. One of the silliest things that you have ever written on this forum.
If the official doesn't signal the granting of a time-out request in some manner, how is anyone else, including the timer, supposed to know that it was done? :eek: The signal is very simple--the official blows the whistle. The rule for the duties of the timer (2-12-6) even states, ". . . Stop the clock at the expiration of time for each quarter or extra period, and when an official signals time-out, as in 5-8. For an intermission or a charged time-out, start the stopwatch and signal the referee as outlined in Article 5."

You mean like the rule for when the ball becomes dead?
Let's try reading 6-7 and you tell me which one of these nine articles applies to the granting of a time-out. Please remember that these are the ONLY nine ways that a live ball can become dead under NFHS rules.

RULE 6
SECTION 7 DEAD BALL
The ball becomes dead, or remains dead, when:
ART. 1 . . . A goal, as in 5-1, is made.
ART. 2 . . . It is apparent the free throw will not be successful on a:
a. Free throw which is to be followed by another free throw.
b. Free throw which is to be followed by a throw-in.
ART. 3 . . . A held ball occurs, or the ball lodges between the backboard and
ring or comes to rest on the flange.
ART. 4 . . . A player-control or team-control foul occurs.
ART. 5 . . . An official’s whistle is blown (see exceptions a and b below).
ART. 6 . . . Time expires for a quarter or extra period (see exception a below).
ART. 7 . . . A foul, other than player- or team-control, occurs (see exceptions
a, b and c below).
ART. 8 . . . A free-throw violation by the throwing team, as in 9-1, occurs.
ART. 9 . . . A violation, as in 9-2 through 13, occurs (see exception d below).

Confused ???
 

Which is it?

a) Official notes that a Team A player is holding or dribbling the ball. Team A head coach verbally requests a timeout. Official looks over at the coach to make sure that it is the Team A head coach. It is, so the official grants the timeout, without looking back at the players on the court.

b) Official notes that a Team A player is holding or dribbling the ball. Team A head coach verbally requests a timeout. Official looks over at the coach to make sure that it is the Team A head coach. It is. Now the official looks again at the players on the court to make sure that a Team A player is holding or dribbling the ball. A Team A player is holding or dribbling the ball, so the official grants the timeout.

This is the very reason we should scrap this rule as it relates to the official having to even listen to a coach. Too much has to be processed when the officials is paying attention to the court.

I was actually surprised to see J.A. Adanda from "Around the Horn" say the same thing this afternoon.

Peace

C'mon JRutledge, Help Me Out ...
 

And your answer is ... ?

It could be either. a: Does looking at the guy after hearing the request confirm to your satisfaction that it was him?

b: Are you unsure who made the request initially until you turn and look at the bench to verify?

A. You've heard "someone" make the request while team A had control. You verified that "someone" was HC-A. Timeout.

You grant the timeout when it is requested and you know the team is in control (not a shot) and the player is in control of the ball. That is what I am going to do, what you do is your choice. :)

Peace

Billy:

The correct procedure is Situation (a). In Situation (a) A1 had player control when HC-A requested a timeout. We do not care if A1 loses player control of the ball after HC-A requests timeout and before the Official grants HC-A request for a timeout.

MTD, Sr.

JRut - I watched "Around the Horn" and "PTI" and both discussed the situation at length and showed the replay. The general consensus was, as we have discussed here many times, let the players call the timeouts and you won't have this issue.

Interesting discussion.

Billy,
I use the procedure outlined in (b). I believe that it is correct based upon the wording of the NFHS rule.

RULE 5
SECTION 8 TIME-OUT, STOPPING PLAY
Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official:
3 . . . Grants a player’s/head coach’s oral or visual request for a time-out,
such request being granted only when:
a. The ball is in control or at the disposal of a player of his/her team.
b. The ball is dead, unless replacement of a disqualified, or injured player(s),
or a player directed to leave the game is pending, and a substitute(s) is
available and required.


According to the rule as written, it is not the timing of the request, but the timing of the granting of that request which must meet the two criteria listed.

If the NFHS desires for only the timing of the request to be subject to those constraints, then it needs to change the wording of the rule. That could be done by replacing the word "granted" with "honored."