Time out

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

A minor difference... in your situation the head coach was not asking for a time out... in the OP, he both signalled and said time out.

What if he was actually saying "Sir, I will be requesting a time-out (insert T signal here) when my player crosses the division line. I would be very grateful if you would grant me that time-out upon my request." But because you have other things to watch, you only paid attention to the words time-out and the T signal. You grant the time-out. He explains that you misunderstood him but you insist on granting and charging the time-out. It seems that you've done him an injustice.

IMO, if in your judgement you believe you misunderstood his request, call it an inadvertent whistle and go POI. If you think he is trying to trick you to gain an advantage, charge him a time-out.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

What if he was actually saying "Sir, I will be requesting a time-out (insert T signal here) when my player crosses the division line. I would be very grateful if you would grant me that time-out upon my request." But because you have other things to watch, you only paid attention to the words time-out and the T signal. You grant the time-out. He explains that you misunderstood him but you insist on granting and charging the time-out. It seems that you've done him an injustice.

IMO, if in your judgement you believe you misunderstood his request, call it an inadvertent whistle and go POI. If you think he is trying to trick you to gain an advantage, charge him a time-out.

Yes, if you completely change the OP to a totally different scenario, it matches your case play. OP doesn't say he believes he misunderstood the request at all - much the opposite it seems to me.

[tjones1]

Sounds like he signalled and verbalized a request for a time-out. In this case, he's met the requirements for a time-out to be granted.... so, I'm granting a time-out.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

IMO, if in your judgement you believe you misunderstood his request, call it an inadvertent whistle and go POI. If you think he is trying to trick you to gain an advantage, charge him a time-out.

See post #14 of this thread,. Your opinion is contrary to what the FED rulesmakers want us to do. Never a good idea IMO.

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

See post #14 of this thread,. Your opinion is contrary to what the FED rulesmakers want us to do. Never a good idea IMO.

5.8.3E(b) . . . the official stops play believing the coach requested a time out. Ruling: . . . Team A was not requesting a time-out and therefore should not be granted or charged with one.

This case tells us that we should not grant and charge a time-out if the coach was not requesting one. In the OP the coach tells the official he was not requesting a time-out. In the OP the official still had the ball and the coach was trying to communicate with him. Apparently the official believed he was requesting a time-out. The coach tells the official he was not requesting a time-out. I don't see why it is so hard to apply 5.8.3E(b) to this and move on.

I also am not convinced that applying a case play to this situation is contrary to POE #1. Since I believe the case play applies, I am actually adhering to POE #1.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

5.8.3E(b) . . . the official stops play believing the coach requested a time out. Ruling: . . . Team A was not requesting a time-out and therefore should not be granted or charged with one.

This case tells us that we should not grant and charge a time-out if the coach was not requesting one. In the OP the coach tells the official he was not requesting a time-out. In the OP the official still had the ball and the coach was trying to communicate with him. Apparently the official believed he was requesting a time-out. The coach tells the official he was not requesting a time-out. I don't see why it is so hard to apply 5.8.3E(b) to this and move on.

I also am not convinced that applying a case play to this situation is contrary to POE #1. Since I believe the case play applies, I am actually adhering to POE #1.

Of course, I could be wrong.

There is a very important phrase you are skipping over in 5.8.3E, "side out". The coach did not say "time-out" as was presented in the OP. If a coach signals "T" and says "time-out", he is going to be granted that timeout if all the requirements are met.

-Josh

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by jdmara

There is a very important phrase you are skipping over in 5.8.3E, "side out". The coach did not say "time-out" as was presented in the OP. If a coach signals "T" and says "time-out", he is going to be granted that timeout if all the requirements are met.

-Josh

I still believe that we should grant and charge a time-out when the coach requests one and we should not grant and charge a time-out when a coach does not request one. As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure that both sides of this discussion agree with that statement and consider it in support of each position.

That leaves us with making a judgement as to whether a coach was requesting a time-out or not. Each situation is a HTBT and I will trust my partners and my judgement when it happens.

[tref]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

That leaves us with making a judgement as to whether a coach was requesting a time-out or not.

A visual & verbal request for a t/o should be granted in the original sitch. Imagine late in a game & a team is out of t/o but forget & requests one anyway. Can he say I didn't want it to get out of a technical foul?

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by tref

Can he say I didn't want it to get out of a technical foul?

Nope. I would never let a coach change his mind. If he requested a time out, I would grant it and charge it. But if I believed I misunderstood his communication, I would be willing to consider that it may have been my mistake and maybe he should not be granted or charged a TO due to my mistake.

I know I am adding to the OP somewhat but, since the ball is not live and the clock is not running, it is easy for me to believe that I may have misunderstood the coach. In fact he tells me I misunderstood him. Believeing that, I would tell him, similar to what I have done before, If you want a TO when they reach the division line you will need to make a request then."

Actually it happens more as trail when a coach's team is shooting FT's. The coach may say, "If he makes this FT, I want a TO." And maybe coach will even give the T signal as he says TO. We've all heard it. I usually respond with, "OK but you will need to request it after he makes the FT."

Do you throw the TO at him because he said time-out and made the T signal? Probably not.

I may have twisted the OP into my own benign little world a bit. But I do believe it is possible to be a basketball official and be cooperative with players and coaches. It ain't all a battle.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

1) I still believe that we should grant and charge a time-out when the coach requests one and we should not grant and charge a time-out when a coach does not request one.

2) That leaves us with making a judgement as to whether a coach was requesting a time-out or not. Each situation is a HTBT and I will trust my partners and my judgement when it happens.

1) So do I.

2) If a coach says "time out" and also gives the "T" signal, as per the OP, I don't know how any official could possibly say that coach was NOT requesting a TO. Not much judgment involved in that particular case imo.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

5.8.3E(b) . . . the official stops play believing the coach requested a time out. Ruling: . . . Team A was not requesting a time-out and therefore should not be granted or charged with one.

This case tells us that we should not grant and charge a time-out if the coach was not requesting one.
Of course, I could be wrong.

And you are wrong.

Apples and oranges. In the case play, the coach wasn't calling a TO. In the original post, he was calling one(albeit wrongly).

In the original post, the official said that not only did the coach make a TO request, he also said the coach made the TO signal. It's a real reach imo to try and say that he made a mistake when he did both. If that ain't a TO request, I don't know what is. And if he doesn't know that he can't call timeouts for sometime in the future, well, it's about time he learned

It's a matter of education. Coaches have to learn that they must signal properly(either verbally or by sign) and they we don't take appointments for future timeouts either.

Rules rulz!

[Scratch85]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

2) If a coach says "time out" and also gives the "T" signal, as per the OP, I don't know how any official could possibly say that coach was NOT requesting a TO. Not much judgment involved in that particular case imo.

Originally Posted by Dbyb

I grant it to him but he says "no, no I meant I want a time out after my player reaches the half court line not now."

Which reply best describes your interaction with coach after he tells you he wasn't requesting a time-out?

a. Liar, liar pants on fire!
b. If you knew the rules as well as I do, you would know that you did in fact just request a time-out. Now talk to your players while I make sure you are charged a TO.
c.



All in fun.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scratch85

Which reply best describes your interaction with coach after he tells you he wasn't requesting a time-out?

a. Liar, liar pants on fire!
b. If you knew the rules as well as I do, you would know that you did in fact just request a time-out. Now talk to your players while I make sure you are charged a TO.
c.



All in fun.

Well, if I saw a TO signal as in the original post, he's sureashell gonna be charged with that TO.

If there is doubt/confusion, I'll give a coach the benefit of the doubt/confusion. But if I hear "TO" and also see a TO signal, I ain't gonna say "nevermind" and fail to follow the rules just to avoid a possible argument. That's weak officiating imo.

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

See post #14 of this thread,. Your opinion is contrary to what the FED rulesmakers want us to do. Never a good idea IMO.

I am not saying don't follow the rules, I am just saying no the situation and use some game management skills. Since the ball is still in the leads hands you may have an extra second to confirm that he/she wants a timeout, especially at the end of the game.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

I am not saying don't follow the rules, I am just saying no the situation and use some game management skills. Since the ball is still in the leads hands you may have an extra second to confirm that he/she wants a timeout, especially at the end of the game.

Nope, you sureasheck ARE saying don't follow the rules. The appropriate rules have already been cited. If a coach requests a timeout, we're supposed to grant it by rule if the ball is in the lead's hands. Period. That's got nuthin' to do with game management either. If a coach screws up a TO request, it's not up to us to ignore plainly-written rules to save his azz. And don't forget that while you are saving that coach's azz, you're also screwing the other coach and his team by allowing an advantage that was never meant under the rules.

Sorry, but I just can't agree with you on this one.

But if it'll make you feel any better, Chris Webber and the rest of the 1993 Michigan U basketball team do agree with you.