Time out
 

Ball is held by lead official on the endline getting ready to hand it to team A player. Team A coach puts his hands together to make a "T". I hear him say time out. 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." Is this a situation that once the time out is granted it can't be taken back? or Is this a miscommunication/inadvertant whistle situation because according to the coach he wasn't asking for a time out at that time?

Once you grant it, he gets it. Next time he will communicate better.

5.8.3 E(b)

Team A head coach is yelling "side out" offensive instructions to his/her team and the official stops play believing the head coach requested a time-out.

Ruling: An inadvertent whistle has occured. Team A was not requesting a time-out and therefore should not be granted or charged with one.

Not exactly the same but close enough for me. Especially since in your sitch the ball was not live and the clock was not running.

He said "Time Out" and signaled it. He gets it IMO

-Josh

Maybe next time coach will request it when he actually wants it OR let an official know that he wants one when they cross half-court & re-request it, if you will.

What if the coach told you, "No. I didn't mean right now. I meant at the 3:14 mark of the third quarter in the game we have a week from Tuesday. Wasn't it obvious? DUH!"

In that case, I'd call an inadvertent whistle and cancel the timeout. Then I'd toss the coach across two zip codes. :)

My point is if the coach acts in a "standard timeout request" mode - grant it if he or she is entitled to it at that time.

We need to use commonsense...maybe look at the coach and ask him do you want a timeout now? We don't need to be a harda$$!

If he signals and says timeout, I don't think it's being a harda$$.

He's got a timeout in my game.

In my game I'll whack him & then give him a t/o. :D

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.

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.

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.

It's a case of following the rules or making up your own. And POE #1 in this year's NFHS rule book tells you exactly what the FED thinks of officials that ignore rules.

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