You know we're not talking about free throws any more?

If he did have a timeout, then it gets used in your situation. It's almost as satisfying, because 9 times out of 10 he's going to try to tell you that you can't charge it to him. He won't want to actually burn that timeout. Your shooter gets his free throw back (no harm really). Why would you go nuts?

Do you go nuts every time a timeout is granted to the coach when it shouldn't be (your team has the ball, for example)?

Just to be clear. The ball was passed to the player to attempt a FT. After this happened the opposing coach called Time Out. Next, the confused player passed the ball back to the official and players then started leaving the lane. The official then granted the time out. Then everything went down the tubes.

Ah, you didn't specify that (although I see how it's all but obvious from your post now), so I didn't make the switch.

No, I wouldn't in that case. Chances are, I'd let it hit me and drop. Lower level ball, I'd tap it back to him and tell him to play on. But as somone else noted, free throws have different rules of conduct.

The bottom line is, in my opinion, there are circumstances in which a coach may yell for a timeout, either when he has none, or when it would not be properly granted, or both, and it may still be neither illegal nor unsporting. The coach may start yelling intentionally early to make sure he gets it as soon as possible. Even the case play has slack in it. It specifies verbal tactics by a player. The coach may yell "Timeout" to get the attention of an official, then when he gets it, says, "After the free throw." The shooter hears timeout, tosses the ball away, then what?

At the very least, I have disconcertion on the coach. New shots for the shooter. Coach would likely try to get a violation called against the shooter, which would likely result in an unsporting T for trying "to influence an official's decision." (10-4-1b)

Making the coach burn (or buy) a TO is icing, AFAIC.

How do you know the official granted the time-out <font color = red>then</font>? He may have granted the timeout request while the free throw shooter still held the ball. He administered the subsequent play that way according to your description. By rule the time-out is granted not when the whistle goes but when the official recognizes and grants the time-out request. There's always some kind of time lag...usually small...between granting the timeout and blowing the whistle to signify that granting.

In this case, I think if the timeout was not granted until after the shooter threw the ball away, it should not be granted unless he asked for it again. It's disconcertion or an improperly granted timeout, not both. If it comes to light afterward that it was all a tactic and was intentionally done and you want to T the coach for that, that's different.

Where's the slack in case book play 5.8.3SitE(a)? In both cases, you have a TO request erroneously granted during a live ball.

We don't know for sure if the calling official granted that TO request while the FT shooter was still holding the ball, but we do know he administered the subsequent play as if he did. If it happened that way, I'm giving the TO-calling team a "T".

As you said yourself, you don't know when the official granted the timeout. According to the description, the request was made, after which the player threw the ball to the official, after which players "started leaving the lane," after which the whistle blew. I think it is fair to assume the timeout was not (improperly) granted while the shooter was still holding the ball.

By the way, exactly when a timeout is granted is not defined in the rules. An editorial revision is needed.

Just to be clear, I don't know how much clearer we can be.

The timeout is granted to the coach, whether he has one or not.

If he doesn't, it's a technical foul as well.

The FT shooter will still get both FTs.

+1, and his internal debate (who called that) may have been interrupted and sped up by the players leaving the lane.

As quickly as this all likely happened, I'm happy with the resolution.

Benefit to the shooter, and not to the coach, whose reaction indicated (not proved) he knew exactly what he was doing.

If you do the timeout, the disconcertion is moot. It can, however, be unsporting and disconcertion.

They could conceivably have gone with two Ts here. One for unsporting, the other for excessive TO; although that goes against the philosophy of one foul for one act.

And +1 back at ya.....:D

The Golden Rule is always penalize the azzholes who are giving you problems( aka penalize whomever might try to get an unfair advantage not intended by rule in any situations like this).