Granting a Timeout

[shutupneff]

Originally Posted by Gargil

Team A was "requesting the timeout after their made basket and prior to the ball being at the disposal of team B. There was no possesion by eaither team, the ball was bouncing near the end line waiting for team B to begin their throw in attempt when the Coach of Team A was requesting the timeout, the T stopped play after it was inbounded (team B possesion) and communicated with the the L regarding the timeout. They did not grant the timeout and gave team B a throw in at the end line. I thought that once they stopped play the timeout should be granted.

Well, it sounds like there hasn't been a timeout requested since the ball was whistled dead. I suppose it's possible (though not necessarily right) for the refs to start to administer a throw in for Team B without asking if A still wants a timeout. But if Coach of Team A says, "Well, can I have a timeout now?" it should be granted.

Or am I wrong?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by shutupneff

Well, it sounds like there hasn't been a timeout requested since the ball was whistled dead. I suppose it's possible (though not necessarily right) for the refs to start to administer a throw in for Team B without asking if A still wants a timeout. But if Coach of Team A says, "Well, can I have a timeout now?" it should be granted.

Or am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong. If a coach requests timeout when he's not authorized to do so, and the official blows the whistle to grant it, it's done. Continue on to grant it at this point.

[Mark Padgett]

One of my favorite scenarios is when a coach requests a timeout when they're not entitled to one and the official grants it and that team was out of timeouts.

[Adam]

Case play 5.8.3E(a).

[Gargil]

The Team A coach was requesting the timeout before the ball was at the disposal of Team B thrower. The Official blew the whistle after the ball was in Team B's possesion. So I think they should have ignored the request by Coach A, but since they stopped play they should have went ahead and granted the timeout.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Gargil

The Team A coach was requesting the timeout before the ball was at the disposal of Team B thrower. The Official blew the whistle after the ball was in Team B's possesion. So I think they should have ignored the request by Coach A, but since they stopped play they should have went ahead and granted the timeout.

If he requests it before it's at the disposal and it takes me a second to verify it's him, I'm giving it to him. I've never had a problem telling the other coach, "he requested it before your guy started the throw in." They all know they'd get the same call.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

If he requests it before it's at the disposal and it takes me a second to verify it's him, I'm giving it to him. I've never had a problem telling the other coach, "he requested it before your guy started the throw in." They all know they'd get the same call.

This is the part where Nevada comes in with a nonsensical rebuttal.

[shutupneff]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Yes, you're wrong. If a coach requests timeout when he's not authorized to do so, and the official blows the whistle to grant it, it's done. Continue on to grant it at this point.

I originally interpreted the scenario as, "T stops play to converse with partner, not to grant timeout," as ludicrous as that whistle would be. Regardless, the timeout should have been granted.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by shutupneff

I originally interpreted the scenario as, "T stops play to converse with partner, not to grant timeout," as ludicrous as that whistle would be. Regardless, the timeout should have been granted.

Maybe, but I don't think I'd win that game of semantics with my assigner.