Ugly Timeout Situation - Discussed Before

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Just found this on the IAABO website:

A player or a Head Coach may request a time-out. The request may be oral or visual. An official may grant the time-out if the ball is live and the clock is running when:
(a) the ball is in control (holding or dribbling) or is at the disposal of a player of his/her team.

Upon hearing/seeing the request for time-out, the official next must check/view the situation and rule whether or not the request can be granted.

What's your point?

I just said we do the same thing. If an oral/visual request is made by a coach while one of his players is in control of a live ball when the clock is running, we also check/view the situation to rule whether the request may be granted. If we visually see a TO signal, we immediately grant the TO request. If we orally hear a TO request, we check/view to make sure it was the head coach that made the request. If it was, we immediately grant the request. That's the correct procedure to use under NFHS rules.

Nowhere in that handout from IAABO can I see where IAABO wants anybody to do anything differently than what I just said above. Nor do I see anything in there that resembles what your little corner of Connecticut is doing. Can you point me to where IAABO is saying that you ALSO have to check/view AGAIN that player control is still being maintained AFTER check/viewing that a legal TO request was made before granting that TO request?

Methinks your little corner of Connecticut is also using Bainsey's rule interpreter. Or maybe the 2 IAABO guys from REF60.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Can you point me to where IAABO is saying that you also have to check/view again that player control is still being maintained AFTER check/viewing that a legal TO request was made before granting that TO request?

The word "next" tells me that.

Jurassic Referee: Nice post on REF60. How come they didn't delete your post? Does your reputation extend that far in cyberspace?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

1) The word "next" tells me that.

2) Jurassic Referee: Nice post on REF60. How come they didn't delete your post? Does your reputation extend that far in cyberspace?

1) There's where we disagree. I read the word "next" as saying you should check to see if it's a valid TO request next after ensuring player control. If it is a valid TO request, there is no further "next" that I can see saying that you have to check again to see if player control is still being maintained. You simply grant the legal TO request. I'd ask your rules interpreter to send that one up the line for a further interpretation if I wuz you.

2) No, hopefully they just recognized a valid question. I don't have a clue why they would delete something identical from you. What still bothers me at that site is that the authors of those articles will never come back and answer valid questions. That's just wrong. And that's why I never go there unless someone asks me about something that was posted there.