Intent or unintended advantage?
 

As I said before, I understand that this is the popular stance on time-out requests and granting them. However, I have been giving this some thought recently, and am a bit concerned that we are not doing justice to the time-out concept.
What I mean is that I believe officials have become overly concerned with making sure they aren't "penalizing the team requesting the time-out" as MTD wrote above. This has reached a point where we have likely forgotten about penalizing the team that is NOT requesting the time-out. The play given in the start of this thread is an excellent example. The defense did a good job to steal the ball. Just because the coach or some player can verbally spit out a quick TO request when it is obvious that his team is going to turn the ball over, we negate a nice defensive play. This happens on throw-ins too. How many times have you seen one official reach a 5 sec count while the coach is suddenly requesting time-out? I've even seen the partner come over and say that they granted the time-out before the 5 second violation even though the partner never blew a whistle!
Since this entire discussion centers around the intent of the rule, I have to inquire whether the rules committee envisioned coaches using their recently acquired ability to request TO simply to prevent an imminent turnover. If this is done 5 times in a game, that can be a big deal. How many of you think that this is why time-outs were initially put into the rules? I don't believe that this was ever the intent.
As we all know, the rules book starts with a couple of paragraphs headed "THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RULES" which includes the sentence, "A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by a rule."
Are we permitting an unintended advantage for the offensive team here?

Granting the time-out in these situations seems similiar to a boxer being saved by the bell. Some like the rule and use it, while others detest and have expressly prohibited it.

I'm not going to say that those who grant these time-outs are wrong, but I do believe that the scales have become tipped too far to offensive side. Afterall, there are two teams out there and it is our job to make sure neither one of them is placed at a disadvantage.
Just food for thought.

Nevadaref
 

I understand your "ruminations" of intent, but I think that the "timing" of when a team decides to use a TO is not our concern as an official.

The reality is that each team is allocated three 60 second (Full) time-outs and two 30 seconds time-outs for use at their discretion. Would you argue that a team that ends the game with unused TOs as an unintended dis-advantage?
As officials, we should not concern ourselves with the timing of their use.

Your statement: "Granting the time-out in these situations seems similiar to a boxer being saved by the bell. Some like the rule and use it, while others detest and have expressly prohibited it." sums up the reality that there are two distinct schools of thought on this issue.


Bottom line: My stance on this issue is that if a team has the unique opportunity (and opts) to request a TO simply "to prevent an imminent turnover" in 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 different situations throughout the game; so be it.

P.S. An additional thought: Is it in the intent of the game for a team to continue a full-court press when they are up by 48 points with 17 seconds left. (Occurred in a game I recently officiated.)

[Edited by williebfree on Jan 2nd, 2003 at 09:11 AM]

We shouldn't question WHY a team asks for a timeout -- not until specific language is put in the rules forbidding a timeout in certain situations, like on a player going out of bounds with the ball.

I had a situation a few weeks ago:

Team B had the ball and apparently team B's head coach started asking for a timeout right about when his player started driving to the hoop. I didn't recognize the timeout request as such until the ball was in the basket and my partner had called a block on the play.

All I did was mention to my partner that the ball had gone in and that the coach may want a timeout once he reports the foul -- what else can officials do?

I'm seriously considering introducing myself by name and asking the coaches to use my name when requesting a timeout -- the last varsity coach I worked with did this and my first name ALWAYS gets my attention. I've missed two timeout requests this season (well, until the coaches were screaming at me and thinking that I'm deaf) even though I think I do a pretty good job of anticipating a "time-out" situation.

Of all the changes made in the last five years, this is the one I wish they'd take away.

Rich

Re: Intent or unintended advantage?
 

Nevada - this is the key to your post - an advantage intended by rule.

By putting timeouts into the game, the rules committee must have thought that this was an acceptable use of a timeout, or else the rule would have been changed. Requesting timeout to prevent turning over the ball is part of the game that is specifically permitted by rule. (See 5.8.3.D.(a) for the Dennis Rodman case play.)

Also, team A is 'penalized' for the advantage gained - by loss of a timeout. There is nothing wrong about granting a timeout in these situations, at least until the NFHS changes the rule.

As a follow-up, Nevada, I believe that the rule was changed specifically to allow a timeout to be granted in cases like this. Perhaps if someone a bit more knowledgeable about it could explain the old 80% rule?

I remember this one. At least into the early to mid-80's, there was a rule that limited the use of a timeout when a count was going. (My best guess is that it changed arround '84, but it's just a guess.) After 80% of a count (i.e. after 8 seconds in the backcourt, 4 seconds on an inbound, or 4 seconds on a closely guarded [don't remember if it applied to 3 seconds]), a TO could no longer be granted. And that was before they let coaches call TOs. I kinda liked the rule, the same way I like the NBA OOB plane rule on TOs.

The rationale behind the 80% rule was that a team didn't deserve a TO if a turnover was pending,and that you penalized good defense by giving them one.The logic was that 80% of a time count was about when a "pending turnover" should kick in.It never applied to 3 seconds.Stupid rule,IMO!

Can you tell us other olde rules?

They're fun!

Mike

Can you tell us other olde rules?

They're fun!

Mike [/B][/QUOTE]I never mind helping out younger officials,especially the clueless ones that need it the most!
http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/knob.gif

I never mind helping out younger officials,especially the clueless ones that need it the most!
http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/knob.gif

[/B][/QUOTE]

As in Bob MyKnob?

I have a question for you. B1 has player control of the ball. Coach B requests a timeout while B1 is driving toward the basket. Did Coach B make his request before B1 released the ball for a try or before B1 released the ball for a try? If the former is true then the only correct thing for you to do was to grant Coach B's request for a timeout; if it was the latter then you were correct in not granting Coach B's request for a timeout.

The reason for the 80% rule was that when the count reached 80% of the limit an "immenent change of status"was about to occur. An "immement change of status" was when the status of the ball was to change either from live to dead or dead to live.