Time out
 

Glad I found this site, as a coach I always like to learn and possibly somebody could answer this for me. This happened a couple of years back in a game that i was scouting.

Team A is at the line shooting a FT. When the shooter was handed the ball the opposing coach called time-out, I believe that it was kind of a slime ball play to be honest. This caused kind of a mess.

First thing that happened was the shooter stopped and passed the ball to the official. Players then started walking towards the benches.

Next the ref granted the time-out.

Turns out the coach did not have a time-out and stated to the ref "The player had the ball, you can't grant me a time-out."....as I said slime ball move.

What should have happened in this situation? If I recall the they allowed the player to take the shots and a T was given to the coach.

A coach cannot call a timeout, he can only make a request, which must subsequently be granted by the official. In this situation, the ball is live, and in control of the opponent, so, by rule, the timeout should not be granted. If the shooter passed the ball to the official, this should have been a violation. If the coach has no timeout but requested one anyway, if the official granted it, properly or not, he gets his timeout, along with a technical foul.

So the correct call should have been that Team B recieves the ball because the shooter failed to hit the Cylinder?

Nowayinhell I'm ever calling a violation in that situation. That's an unfair advantage not intended by rule. I'm doing exactly what it sounds like the officials actually did. Tell 'em you granted the TO by mistake but once you granted it, it must be taken. The ball was dead on your granting of the TO before any FT violations occurred. Give the calling team a "T" for the excess TO and penalize everything in order of occurence.

We have rules backing for all of that.

Classic false multiple foul.:)

Exactly.

If the coach further objects, I'll tell him he can have a T for unsporting conduct or a T for excess TO. And, I might even have a disconcertion violation if the first FT turns out to be missed.

Actually, according to the sequence of events as given in the OP, request was made, ball tossed to the official, (violation) timeout was granted. (T) By rule, everything here is correct.

Sounds like a classic case of disconcertion to me.

Okay, no offense JAR, but I think it's time we get rid of this one. :)

Only an official can grant a timeout.

But a player or a coach can definitely CALL timeout.

I agree this one has been beat to death. The point I was making, which I thought needed to be said in this case, was that nothing the coach said or did could kill the play, this has to be done by the official.

tough situation. Sounds like the officials tried to ignore the request initially, but decided to grant him the TO when the shooter obviously got confused.
I like how they dealt with it.

The coach's time-out request came while A1 still had the ball and since his request was granted the ball became immediately dead when he made his request. Not possible for A1 to violate since the ball was dead.

There is a case book play stating to penalize a verbal fake with a violation, such as one player telling an opponent to switch lane spaces after the shooter has the ball. That seems similar to what the coach did.
I have no problem with the answer of JR, and believe that there is rules support.

An improperly made request does not cause the ball to be immediately dead.

If the request is recognized why wouldn't it?








You know, similar to "improper throw-in, coach's comment, 3-point shot taken, basket made, then a whistle."

A foul causes the ball to be dead, a timeout request does not. When was the request granted? According to the OP, the player heard the request, threw the ball to the official, then the timeout was granted. I took this to mean the official originally intended to ignore the request.

In this case it made the ball dead b/c it was disconcertion.

Nope, not immediately. Disconcertion is a delayed violation.

I was thinking I'd seen a case play or interp that indicated disconcertion by the bench was a technical foul; but I can't find it.

I'll amend. If the disconcertion causes the free-thrower to violate the ball becomes dead, the violation is ignored, and the free-thrower gets their shot.

And in this particular case I'm ignoring the time-out request b/c it was not a legal request and I did not recognize it.

I have a hard time calling this disconcertion.

Why? You either have to do that or call the violation. Or, I guess, consider the TO request to have been granted.

I'm only going with 1 of 2 things here:

1.) Disconcertion on Coach B, ignore the violation, and A1 getting 2 free throws.

or

2.) Unsporting T on Coach B, which means ball became dead immediately, A1 gets 2 free throws, any A player gets 2 more free throws, Team A gets a throw-in at half court.

In either situation I'm not penalizing for an excess time-out as I would never have recognized the time-out request since there was Team A control.

I'm thinking all parties and my supervisors would live with #1.

It is ultimately the responsibility of the player to know what makes the ball dead.

Team A is holding the ball, sitting on a small lead late in the game. Coach B yells "Time out!" A1 tosses you the ball. You gonna somehow give it back to him here?

Hey Man, You’re In My Personal Space ...
 

9.1.3 SITUATION B: While A1’s free-throw attempt is in flight toward the basket:
(a) B1; or (b) A2, in a marked lane space, fakes by rocking forward causing
an opponent to enter the lane prematurely. RULING: In (a), the official will use the
proper signal indicating a violation by B1 and a substitute free throw is awarded
if A1’s attempt is unsuccessful. If it is successful, the violation is ignored. In (b),
the official will sound his/her whistle immediately when A2 violates. The violation
cancels A1’s attempt and it is B’s ball for a throw-in, unless an additional free
throw(s) is involved. COMMENT: If a player uses verbal tactics like “you’re in my space”
or a time-out request to fake an opponent into violations, only the fake is
penalized. (9-1-3b Penalty 1, 4d)

That's the one and provides clear rules direction on how to handle this situation. That is exactly what the coach did in the OP.

To use the words of another esteemed member, doesn't exactly cover the OP but it's close enough for me to use.

Yep. Every time. Knowing the coach has no timeouts left would only make me more likely to give it to him here. The case play seems pretty clear on this. And if I don't grant the TO and the shooter takes the shot and misses, I'll give him another one.

If you rule the Coach's action to be unsporting, then yes, at the division line after 2 free throws.

Or not.

But it's not the same as causing a free thrower to violate. There are different rules for free throws then there are for other live play.

Really? I'd have a real easy time calling disconcertion here. There's no reason for the coach to be calling timeout here.

No, but the granting of it does. And you have no idea when the TO was really granted from the confused description we're being given from a non-official.

What would have happened if he actually did have a time-out? My impression is that some refs that see through the BS would either call disconcertion or un-sportsman like conduct. Its scary to think, depending on the official and the "interpratation" of the rule that a coach could possibly get away with this. More than likely not with an experienced crew, but I can tell you that as a coach I would go nuts if this happened to me!

Once the ball is dead (after it's passed back to the official), the timeout is granted, whether he wants it or not.

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).

It when the whistle is sounded. That is the only logical reason for the timer to stop the clock and the players to cease action. It is also the only one of the rules under 6-7 for making the ball dead which applies to time-out requests during a live ball.

When I suggested something to this effect once, an angry mob formed.

Here we go again. Can I just summarize the argument that will now ensue so we can all skip having it?

"No, it isn't."

"Yes, it is."

Thank you.

http://www.runemasterstudios.com/gra.../smilielol.gif

Thanks for that, Rich.

Here We Go Again ...
 

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/z_zDcQV6_6k?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/z_zDcQV6_6k?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

You're welcome.

Consider it skipped.

Not necessarily. If you have disconcertion (delayed) and have the timeout before A1 shoots, the delayed violation carries through the timeout and the first shot will resume with a delayed violation pending. A timeout doesn't erase a delayed violation.

Good point, I'd forgotten about that.

If you granted the timeout, there's no disconcertion, because there's no free throw.

Soooooooo........

Case book play 9.1.3SitC doesn't exist, same as 4.19.8SitC?

Got it.

What color is the sky in your world, BITS?

If the timeout was granted when requested, the ball was dead, so there was no violation.

Did you even bother to read that case play cited? The rules say that statement is wrong.

Wrong. There's nothing that prevents you from both granting the request and ruling the request itself to be disconcertion. As the case play states, the delayed violation would then carry over to the FT following the TO.

I'm not talking about the case play, I'm talking about the situation at hand, to which this case play does not apply. In the OP, if you consider the coach's timeout request to be disconcertion, (I don't) then when the shooter throws the ball to the official, the disconcertion is penalized. If you choose to (improperly) grant this bogus timeout request by the devious coach, then the ball is dead, so there is no violation by anybody.

It's kinda hard to figure something like that out, BITS, when you don't point it out and you also respond directly to 2 posts by Snaqs and me talking about something different.

And the biggest difference/problem in that discussion is that in the case play considering a player's wrongful TO request as disconcertion (9.1.3SIB COMMENT ), there was no TO granted. If you had granted the TO, you would also have to penalize that team for taking an excess TO. Instead, you don't grant the TO and call the disconcertion instead.

Two different case plays for two different situations iow....one with a timeout granted and one with no TO granted but disconcertion called instead of granting the TO.

Okay, I may have wandered on one post or the other about what we were talking about.

Bottom line: The bogus timeout can either be ignored, considered to be disconcertion and penalized accordingly, or granted, and penalized with the T if that team had no timeouts.

But only one of those 3 options, agreed?

I disagree. As stated before, I see no reason you can't rule the request to be disconcertion at the same time you grant the request.

Yup, I agree.

The TO request can be ignored in that situation because it's invalid by rule anyway. Or we can consider the TO request as disconcertion if it affected the FT, not grant that TO request and then penalize the request accordingly as disconcertion. Or if we granted the TO by mistake, we'd then penalize the excess TO with the thrower getting the FT's again anyway because the ball was dead on the request.

I can. It is disconcertion if you don't grant the TO request and the free thrower violated because of that TO request. It isn't disconcertion if you wrongfully grant the TO request before the FT shooter violates. It's just a dead ball and the FT shooter then gets all of his merited FTs anyway.

Make sense?

Sure makes sense to me :D

Yeah, I can see it. No common sense justification for calling disconcertion when the act that caused it caused the ball to become dead immediately.