I'm not an official but I've seen this time and time again at the pro and college level and hope that someone can shed some light on it.

Scenario 1: While jumping out of bounds to save ball, player calls time out. Since he was in the air and had possession, time out is granted. No problem.

Scenario 2: While jumping out of bounds to save ball, player calls time out. Official rules that player was out of bounds (had come down prior to calling time out) and awards ball to opposing team. Play continues. Here's where I have the problem.

The player called time out. Why don't officials grant (or in this case force) a time out? The player, official, fans, you and I know that he called TO to try to retain possession of the ball. However, the fact remains that the player called time out and I don't know if I've ever seen the team be made to take the TO if they don't retain possession.

Comments?

The officials cannot force a team to take a TO, they can only grant the request for a TO if it is appropriate.

1. when a player of the team requesting a TO has control
or the ball is at the disposal of a player on that team

2. during a dead ball.

in your play the request for TO could have been granted
due to the ball being dead, the player was trying to make a heads up play but didn't quite make it. The ball was dead
so before granting the TO the official needs to make sure they still want the TO(they may not). This is not like the case of a team requesting a TO during a live ball(theirs) or after a made basket when requesting and granting a TO would stop play.

Usually, the player wants to know if he requested the TO prior to the violation. If he did, he obviously wants it. If he didn't, he may not want it. Usually, if the violation is called, the official will ask the player if he still wants the TO. Most of the time, they don't.

If you grant the TO in this situation, you're basically penalizing the team twice. The player requested the TO for one reason only: to keep possession of the ball. But since he requested it too late, he's lost the ball. So now if you grant the TO, they've lost the ball and been charged with a TO that they don't really want. So as has been said already, in this situation the official will usually ask, "You still want the TO?" and the answer is always "no".

Chuck

If the violation comes first, we are obligated to call the violation first. Once the violation has been called, the player can once again REQUEST it, if he wants to. Players do not call timeout, officials do.

Hmm. I thought the intitial post was making a diferent point: a lot of people hate the falling out of bounds TO (and if memory serves, the NBA abolished it). I thought the poster was suggesting that granting the TO, whether it was soon enough or not, would increase the risk of the play and make players more hesitant to try it and risk losing the ball and the TO. (Personally, I like the FIBA rule . . .)

I don't get it. The official actually asks the player if he's sure he wants a TO? What is he...a blackjack dealer? Why would you ever even ask a player if he really wants a TO? If ever, should you not be presumptious and ask every time?

What if the team had no TO's remaining? Is taking a TO or merely requesting a TO with none remaining a technical? Because if it's the former, I've never seen a ref ask the guy if he really wants one.

The only ncaa rules I can find regarding this state that "timeouts in excess of the allotted number may be requested and shall be granted at the expense of an indirect technical foul" and "a team shall not be granted excessive timeouts without incurring a penalty."

For the reason that I stated earlier. The player wanted the TO for only one reason. But once he stepped OOB, granting the TO will not accomplish what the player hoped for.

Quote:

should you not be presumptious and ask every time?

No, b/c in every other situation, you know that the player or coach wants the TO to either rest, stop the clock, prevent a turnover, or devise strategy. And since granting the TO will always accomplish at least one of those, the official can grant it without asking if the player is sure.

Quote:

What if the team had no TO's remaining?

Granting the TO in this situation will still allow the player or coach to do what he intended; i.e., stop the clock or devise strategy. However, the cost of doing it is a technical foul.

Hope that helps.

Chuck

Many situations.
 

You would be surprised how often a player wants a timeout and the situation might not warrant it. For example, during a time when we have an injury and a player "requests" a timeout and we have to wait for the situation to be handled, as an official you ask, "do you want a timeout still?" They might say no because the reason they wanted one in the first place was because one of their players was hurt. Or even better, they wanted to discuss a game situation, which they can techinically do during a injury timeout in the first place (not sitting down of course). Especially at the HS level, players do not understand what the rules are and sometimes ask for timeouts when the rules do not allow it. You ask to make sure the request is valid.

Peace

Chuck...I'm not trying to be difficult and this kind of changes the topic but why, with your claim of always knowing why TO's are being called, would you grant a TO to a team with none without making sure they want one first? Generally when this happens it's at the end of a game when everything is frenetic and a player unwittingly calls a TO to try to slow things down. Probably 99.9% of these are done with the player not knowing/realizing/remembering that there are none left and had they known this they would NOT have called time out. With your knowing that they would not have done this, why isn't this player ever asked if he's sure? If the ball's dead, this seems like one of the most obvious places to ask but I've never seen this not called a T.

I'm guessing Chris Webber would like to have that one in the ncaa finals back.

Because, in that situation, everyone in the building knows he's asking for a TO and why. He's usually screaming "TIMEOUT!" You have no choice but to grant it. Also, for all I know, he's aware that he doesn't have any timeouts remaining but he still wants one.

BTW, it wouldn't have mattered with Chris Webber. We had him double-teamed in the corner, Heels up by 2, just a few seconds left. I like our chances! :)

Sigh!Damn fans showing up on the Forum again.Where's JBDuke when ya need him?:D

Tony, I agree it would not have mattered. It would also have been a moot point if the officials called one of the two travels he had before he asked for the timeout. One of them was "at least" 2 steps. I am a Duke fan, but I was rooting for NC that night (ACC fan).

BktBallRef...So now you're selectively psychic? You claim to know why TO is called but you don't know if he's aware that he has none left?

I can think of very few situations where a team would want to call a TO knowing that they don't have one and 99.9% of the players who call them are always dejected after learning there are none left.

Granted, the play I brought up was during a live ball and I doubt that you want to run up to a player and ask him if he really wants a TO in this situation.

So...let's go way off topic and assume...dead ball, player comes up to you signaling TO with none left and without, in your mind, a good reason to call one. ALL THE FANS SEE IT. Do you still ask him while knowing that everyone int the crowd is expecting the T?


Jurassic and dblref...not a Michigan fan at all; just the one that popped into my head.

That's not an unreasonable question, and the answer is: b/c whether he really "wanted" the TO or not, the TO accomplishes what the player really did want, which is to stop the clock, or "slow things down" as you put it. So you grant the TO, which accomplishes what the player wanted. Unfortunately, the price of stopping the clock in that situation is a T.

Chuck

Who gives a rat's @ss WHAT ALL THE FANS WANT OR EXPECT?

Only one of the official's on the floor can grant a TO.
Maybe he sees the player, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he
looks over at the player's head coach before granting the TO in this case. This stuff is slightly more complicated than
you seem to think it is.

Anyway, you've already said you're not an official but you
sure do seem to have a huge bug up your @ss. What's your
story? Coach? Player? Frustrated fan? Just stopping by
to stir the pot a little?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Who gives a rat's @ss WHAT ALL THE FANS WANT OR EXPECT? [snip, snip] Anyway, you've already said you're not an official but you sure do seem to have a huge bug up your @ss.

Hmmmmm. . . Understated. . . Subtle. . . Nice bouquet. . . Yes, Dan seems to be aging quite nicely. (There's a joke in here somewhere about sticking a cork in him, but I won't make it :D :p )

Chuck

The fanboy that I was referring to was BktBallRef.You know...the guy in the light blue underwear.Got light blue skid marks in 'em,too!

BTW,Tony,ya think NC needs a new coach?Someone that really knows how to bring them up to the next level?I hear Jerry Tarkanian is available.He'll modernize your program.

Jes' kidding!:D

True, but I missed a travel once myself, so I forgave the official, after Donald Williams knocked down the FTs! :D

No, I'm not psychic but I'm not an idiot either. If it isn't obvious to you then I guess it's good that you don't officiate it.

If a player is falling OOB, he's obviously requesting TO to prevent the turnover. If he violates prior to requesting the TO, I have to call the violation first. If he still wants the TO after I call the violation, he can have it. I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH WHETHER HE HAS A TO LEFT OR NOT.

If runs up to me and requests timeout at the end of the game, he's obviously requesting timeout to stop the clock. I'll give it to him. I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH WHETHER HE HAS A TO LEFT OR NOT.

How does one see light blue skid marks on light blue underwear? :confused:

BTW, they aren't light blue. There Carolina Blue!

aargh
 

This is one of the dumbest threads I've ever read on this site.

If you are going to penalize a player trying to make a great hustle play by judging him or her to have violated first and grant the TO, well, you just don't get it.

And by "it", I also mean better assignments and respect of players and coaches. If you don't believe me, go ahead and make that call the day your assigner or evaluator is in attendance.

Reluctantly!

Re: aargh
 

I don't think anyone here is advocating that except the knucklehead that started the thread.

Re: aargh
 

Very well said, Coach! It all goes back to that elusive "game management" topic...this is a perfect situation for judging how well an official can manage what is going on on the court...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref Quote: Who gives a rat's @ss WHAT ALL THE FANS WANT OR EXPECT? [snip, snip] Anyway, you've already said you're not an official but you sure do seem to have a huge bug up your @ss. Hmmmmm. . . Understated. . . Subtle. . . Nice bouquet. . . Yes, Dan seems to be aging quite nicely. (There's a joke in here somewhere about sticking a cork in him, but I won't make it :D :p ) Chuck

Ha. Ha. Ha. :)

Maybe save the cork for a certain baseball team who shall remain nameless. :p

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Maybe save the cork for a certain baseball team who shall remain nameless. :p

You mean the Yankees are using Albert Belle's bats? :eek: Actually, that explains a LOT!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ChuckElias

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref Quote: Maybe save the cork for a certain baseball team who shall remain nameless. :p You mean the Yankees are using Albert Belle's bats? :eek: Actually, that explains a LOT!

Used to be we could say the Red Sox won a world series every
time there was a revolution in Russia. Sadly, even that streak was broken! :p

Hey this is fun, been a while since we had some Sox
bashing around here. I know JR's gonna be jumping in soon, where's Mark Dexter? :D

Used to be we could say the Red Sox won a world series every
time there was a revolution in Russia. Sadly, even that streak was broken! :p [/B][/QUOTE]Kinda amazing that you're statistically more likely to be able to see two Haley's Comets than two Bosox World Series wins,isn't it?

Kinda amazing that you're statistically more likely to be able to see two Haley's Comets than two Bosox World Series wins,isn't it? [/B][/QUOTE]
Ok, now I know that this is all good fun, and I certainly don't take any of it too personally, but we should at least get some facts straight. The Red Sox have won five World Series, including the very first one in 1903. They would've won again in '04, except that the NL champions refused to play against the "upstart" league. In any case, they won in 1903, '12, '15, '16, '18. Now I know all you Yankees gloaters, I mean fans, only care about "What have you done for me lately?". And obviously, the Sox haven't done much lately. But 5 championships in 100 years is a larger statistical result than the number of times Halley's Comet is visible from Earth in 100 years.

Ok, now I know that this is all good fun, and I certainly don't take any of it too personally, but we should at least get some facts straight. The Red Sox have won five World Series, including the very first one in 1903. They would've won again in '04, except that the NL champions refused to play against the "upstart" league. In any case, they won in 1903, '12, '15, '16, '18. Now I know all you Yankees gloaters, I mean fans, only care about "What have you done for me lately?". And obviously, the Sox haven't done much lately. But 5 championships in 100 years is a larger statistical result than the number of times Halley's Comet is visible from Earth in 100 years. [/B][/QUOTE]

We call this kind of bursty activity "spurious perturbation" generally safe to ignore when looking for trends of statistical significance. In other words, what have you done lately? ;)

BTW, this is gonna get a lot worse, as long as the Yanks can manage to keep winning. Gloat, gloat. :D

Don't worry Chuck, at least Ramirez won the AL batting title...us Mariner fans got squat outta this season...

But 5 championships in 100 years is a larger statistical result than the number of times Halley's Comet is visible from Earth in 100 years. [/B][/QUOTE]Actually,I was referrring to ONE Bosox championships in the last 85 years--and counting!Or NO Bosox champioships in the last 84 years--and counting.Your choice!

That's enough to make poor Ted Williams roll over in his icebox.

Seriously,Chuck,I really wanted to see the Sox get a play-off spot.A Yankees/Bosox ALCS final would have been fun to watch.Great rivalry!Also would have been sure to liven up the board,too.:D

Hey, at least the Sox won the first half of the season!

(As per every year since 1500 . . .)

Ok, now I know that this is all good fun, and I certainly don't take any of it too personally, but we should at least get some facts straight. The Red Sox have won five World Series, including the very first one in 1903. They would've won again in '04, except that the NL champions refused to play against the "upstart" league. In any case, they won in 1903, '12, '15, '16, '18. Now I know all you Yankees gloaters, I mean fans, only care about "What have you done for me lately?". And obviously, the Sox haven't done much lately. But 5 championships in 100 years is a larger statistical result than the number of times Halley's Comet is visible from Earth in 100 years. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, but it ain't nowhere as good as winning 25. Let me repeat that...25! Working on number 26.

Perhaps the Dead Sox should reverse the season. But, then again they might lose both halves of the season. :D