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.

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

And you are wrong. :D

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!

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.

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?

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.

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. :D

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. :cool:



All in fun. :D

I like where you are going with this. I know that in my games if I am the closest officials I am in the habit of asking the coach "Full or 30" before granting the T/O. Originally, I did it to save the hassle of asking the coach WHILE everyone was heading to the bench, but did find it kept me out of situations where the coach wasn't asking for a T/O but was calling a play that sounded similar.
On a different, yet on topic note, I was talking to an officiating pal of mine and they reminded me of a game where we had a situation similar to the OP. When I asked the coach if they wanted a full or 30 she said she "Actually I want a full time out once we get the ball past half court. Assuming of course my team can GET IT past half court".. They did and she did. Pretty funny

It's also pretty funny that you choose to make up your own rules instead of just following the ones we already have. Why do you think the FED put case book play 5.8.3E(b) in? So you could ignore it?
The proper procedure is to ask "full or 30" after granting a TO. If you find yourself in the situation where the coach wasn't asking for a TO, just follow the rules already cited in this thread.

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

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.

Waterboarded ???
 

Hanged, drawn and quartered?

But does it say you CAN'T ask them before hand? If you already know before hand why should you ask AFTER you grant them the time out? This, along with other interpretations, imo, can fall under the old axiom "There are those who feel that if the Book doesn't say you can than you can't and those who feel that if the Book DOESN'T say you can't then you can." (Its an axiom that is why a double negative is allowed!)

This discussion is just about as silly as the blarge thread.

A coach signals and/or asks for a time out, if they are eligible to request it I will grant it at that time.

We should never grant requests in the future " time out on a make" or "time out once we gain the front court"

I had a game tonight where I was with a younger official in a Girls varsity game and my partner granted the latter. I spoke with him and advised him time outs should never be granted in the future.

If coach is asking, grant the request if they can legally request a TO.

Not to get all metric on anyone, but I'm glad this isn't a problem in FIBA.

Timeouts go to the table, and can only be awarded on deadballs by the table. Keeps things simple for those simple officials like me, and simpler coaches.

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.

In reality, I don't see granting coaches the ability to request timeouts as big of a deal as we sometimes make it out to be. Not enough so that requests have to go through the table and only during dead ball . Are there times when the closest official can not see or hear a coach requesting a timeout? Sure, but there is almost always an official either close enough grant the request or one who should be opposite table side that should be able to pick up a coach requesting one. This and appropriate game awareness usually makes this a non-issue.

Essentially, the OP was not the official's fault for misunderstanding the coach, but the coach's fault for asking for a TO when they weren't entitiled to one (for some point in the future). Another part of 5.8.3(E) specifically states that if an official mistakenly grants a TO to a team that requests one, but isn't entitiled to ask for one, the TO is still granted. Think of it in terms of both the coach and official screwing up, but the TO is still granted anyway. We can't say, "Whoops, we screwed up - nevermind, play on." In the part of case you're citing, it's 100% the official's fault, as they heard something that was not said at all.

In the OP, the coach did verbalize and signal a TO. Even though they were trying to add qualifiers (at some point in the future), it's not 100% the official's fault for not understanding those qualifications.

In the case of a coach asking me for a TO at some point in the future - "Give me a TO if he makes this second FT" - I don't consider that the request, but rather a heads-up that the coach will be making a valid request at a particular time in the near future, and I will now be aware of it to grant the request at that time. Many times I'll reply, "Thanks for letting me know; give me a nod again after the FT". The nod is now the request that is granted at the proper time.

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. :D

+1

But wasn't the ball already inbounds and live in 93 whereas the OP the ball has not yet been placed at the disposal of the player? Apples and Oranges maybe? Or pears and prunes?

Um, no. In both instances, a TO may be legally requested and must then be granted by rule. There's no appreciable difference at all, rules-wise, between the two situations except that you wouldn't grant a defensive request for a TO in the Michigan game.