Jay Bilas, a Lawyer?, He can not even read.
 

During half time of Duke NC game, they showed replay of the controversial TO granted to Syracuse in their game against UConn tonight.

So Bilas, the so called expert, is reciting the rule as it also scrolls by on TV. Where rule says for a timeout to be granted, a player must be in control, Bilas substitutes team control, which of course may not necessarily be true.

Lee:

If there is team control but not player control at player or coach's request for a timeout can not be granted. But a player or coach's request for a timeout can be granted if the ball is dead.

MTD, Sr.

But did he agree with the call? I saw that call (and the Ted V. no call at the half of NCS and VT). Would like to know if 'Cuse was granted a time out b/c of a verbal request.

He didn't agree with the call because, as he says, the timeout was granted after the Syracuse player released his shot.

To me it appeared the TO was granted while there was player control , the whistle was blown when there was not player control. In other words, the referee, I think it was Cahill, heard the request, but by the time he could blow the whistle, there was a loss of player control.

A good call by Cahill since last time he worked these teams, it went 6 OT's. Got it done in regulation this time.

I totally agree. I thought it was a good call as well.

Someone from Nevada will be along to disagree with you.... :D

It's like you're reading my mind.

This is a basketball fundamental. The whistle rarely causes the ball to become dead, it is already dead. And no I did not see the play, but if what I am reading is correct, then the official got it right.

Peace

Right...It doesn't matter when the whistle was blown. I've always been told it doesn't matter when the whistle blows, as long as the TO was requested at the right time.

This rule still cries out for an editorial change. We need a definition of when the timeout is granted.

In the replay, it appears to me that the ball is already in the UConn player's hands when Cahill turns his head in Boeheim's direction. Impossible to say when he actually heard/recognized the request in relation to his visible reaction.

Where would the fun be in that? :D

I was watching the game live and I thought it was way too late. However, and this has happened to me, perhaps the coach verbally called a TO and the ref simply did not recognize it right away(brain freeze) and blew the whistle but the ball was with UCONN.
The Cuse coach better say he verbally requested a TO to help out the ref. Otherwise I would have been much more impressed with the ref admitting an inadvertent whistle.

I don't know why you would say that. ;) But, of course, it is true. I thought that Cahill kicked this one.

The rules fundamental does say that, but you must know when that fundamental properly applies.

Does a time-out request make the ball dead? Do the rules say that as they do for a violation or a foul?
I don't believe so. In the case of a time-out it absolutely does matter when the whistle is blown.

Agreed.

That's what I see on the video replay on ESPN360.

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."

Does that mean that if you call a player control foul but don't blow your whistle and signal the PC foul until the ball is loose, you have to change it to a team control foul?

Same logic.....

Same logic, yes. Same wording, no. The foul causes the ball to become dead. The timeout request does not. When the timeout is granted is not specifically defined in any book.

Is it?

Try reading 6-7, JR, as already posted in this thread. There's a rule for the PC stating that the ball is dead at the time of the foul.

If you are going to criticize, you may wish to get your rules straight.

And rule 5-8-1 says that time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped, when an official signals a foul, NOT at the time of the foul.

You might try looking at all the rules, not just the ones convenient to your purpose.

And yes, the rule book verbiage used isn't very good either. But I still can't believe that the intent of the rulesmakers is for us to hear a request, check to see if the request is from a coach or player, and then check again to make sure that the request is still legal before granting that TO request. That makes no sense at all. And you sureasheck would never see those quick TO requests granted when a player is laying on the court with the ball and a coach is asking for a TO trying to avoid a held ball.

I can't remember -- who was it who recently posted "same ****, different day"?

{raising his hand} Ooooh ooooh! I know! I know!

Well it wasn't the same poster that gave another poster sh!t about his inane comments about 8 minutes after he himself made an inane comment.

He'd never do that.

Nice to see a quick hit-and-run can provoke what followed.

I've never had a problem with this time-out thingy.

"TIME OUT....BEFORE HE RELEASED THE PASS"

"TIME OUT....BEFORE SHOT WAS RELEASED"

"TIME OUT....BEFORE STEPPING OUT OF BOUNDS"

"TIME OUT....BEFORE HE WAS TIED UP"


Verbalizing why you are granting the time-out in these types of situations clears up a lot of confusion.

Sure, if you choose not to follow the rules. :rolleyes:

"Time-out ... three possessions ago."
"Time-out ... back in the 2nd quarter."

Yeah, just explain it. Just wonderful.

I missed anywhere in this thread where someone talked about granting times-out from 3 possessions ago or from a previouis quarter. Can you please point me to that post so I can on the same Bizarro topic you are apparently on.

Guess you have a problem in Nevada with officials lacking common sense and sticking to reality. Not a problem in Virginia. Must be a regional thing.