Sometimes you can’t win.

My first game Saturday morning…girls varsity. Less than 10 seconds in the half, ball goes OOB off B so team A to have throw-in near the division line in their frontcourt. I’m trail, tableside getting ready to administer the throw-in. I hear Coach A say “Time”. I blow my whistle and say “Time out...white”. You can probably guess what had happened. He was not requesting a TO, but was reminding his team to be aware of the time on the clock. In his defense, he started explaining before I even had a chance to finish saying those three words. I stood there for a moment, declared it an inadvertent whistle and prepared to continue. Coach B stands up and starts to complain. I told her it was my mistake; I would do the same for her if the situation were reversed. She was not real happy, but didn’t complain loudly.

Fast forward to mid third quarter. Again, I am trail this time opposite table. Closely guarded situation in front of me with B1 looking to get rid of the ball. I hear “Time Out” from across the court. Not gonna burn me twice...may be a fan. I look at Coach B and she is making a T sign and repeats the request. OK...tweet. Guess what, in the second I looked away B1 had dropped the ball and was struggling to get it back (it was between her feet) and A1 was trying to slap it away for a steal. So I just granted a TO to team B when nobody had control of the ball. GEEZ. Coach A starts to go nuts, I walk over and tell him the TO was granted when I heard it, and at that time, team B had control (just forget about the delay in the whistle). He just stood there looking at me, so I added quietly, “Besides, you got a break before halftime”. He wheeled around and took a seat.

Rest of the game seems like a lifetime...have you ever noticed how slow a clock runs?

Lets address your second situation first. At the time that Coach B requested a timeout, B1 had player control of the ball. It does not matter that B1 then lost control of the ball between the time that Coach B made her request and you responded to her request. Valid timeout of Team B.

Your first situationn is tougher. I would bet apples to oranges that when Coach A said the word "time" he was close enough to you and directly behind you that one could assume that he was whispering sweet nothings in your ear. If that was the case, Coach A just made a successful request for a team timeout.

Same thing....
 

...happened to me a few weeks ago.

A coach in the area has a play he calls "five-out."

Well, guess what that sounded like to this trail official.

The coach thought I was whacking him, since he was working my partner just a minute earlier. It was mild stuff, really -- couldn't remember what he had said even then.

Comic relief? Yes.

Charged timeout? Nope. I got the teams back on the floor and we started playing. Nobody said a word although there was quite a bit of laughter for a minute.

Rich

Something I learned about timeouts. When I hear a coach yelling time out, I check possession, quick scan of the floor to see if any players are calling the time out too and check the coach and whose teams he's on - possession one last time and TWEET: TIMEOUT _COLOR_ . Sounds like a lot only takes about a second or two. Under 45 sec I check possession and then coach. Screw the rest. But I figure if a coach is hollerin for a timeout one of his players is gunna signal and ask for it too.

Mark
I agree with your reasoning on the original second (now your first) case. But you appear to be saying that the first original case should also be a TO - because the ref misunderstood, now a team is getting charged with a TO. To reset this situation, the ball is not even in the hands of the inbounder, so this is not a piece of gamesmanship on the part of a coach trying to avoid a 5 second count or a turnover. The coach did not want TO, had no obvious reason to pull a stunt to get the ref to blow a stoppage, and gained nothing by doing so even if he intended to pull a stunt - this is a dead ball. Please explain why this should be a TO.

Re: Same thing....
 

I'm doing a medal game at a summer provincial tournament a few years ago at York University. I'm T, table side, about 10 feet from coach A. I hear some words from coach A that sound like "time-out", but am not sure. Then he says them again, louder, and with more emphasis. I decide that he's asking for a timeout, so I confirm his team has player control to grant him the TO. In the meantime, he's standing up, very much telling everyone "time-out".

I grant the TO. (His team was pressured near the division line.) The guy evaluating starts laughing. Right away I know something is up because this gentleman is one of the funniest guys I've ever met. Turns out the coach was yelling "five-out" - the name of a play that his team uses. Both coaches got a bit of a laugh out of it and about 5 seconds of some instruction to their respective players.

Luckily for me my evaluator was very understanding. :)

Good advice,Ace.

I usually tell the coaches before the game when we introduce ourselves(1)head coach only can call the TO from the bench(2)give us a visual T,if you can.It'll help us out and you'll get it quicker.

I remember an NFL game from 5-10 years ago, when Troy Aikman was signaling an audible to his receivers. His signal was his hands in the shape of a T. The 'Boys got a TO and I remember thinking, "never have a play name that sounds like timeout or a signal that is a T."

Hasn't happened to me in basketball (yet) but I have had it happen in flag football. Our back judge keeps the official clock, and once at R, a few guys from one team came up to me shouting "Time, time!!" I stop the clock - assuming they wanted a timeout because I didn't know exactly how much was left on the clock.

In this situation, no harm done. The ball was dead and the clock was stopped, so just get going as soon as possible. What I'm interested in is everyone's feelings when (if) this happens during a live ball, running clock situation.

Philosophy or rule?
 

MTD
Are you sure you want to stand by this? 5-8-3A tells us that a time-out request shall only be granted when the ball is in control or at the disposal of a player of the team.
You write that at the time that Coach B requested a time-out, B1 had player control. That is not the same as B1 having player control at the time when the time-out was granted. I think that according to the rule it really does matter what happens during the time between the request and when the official responds to the request.
I understand that many officials have the same philosophy as you do on this. ie. If the official is late responding that is not the team's fault and the TO should be granted.
May I just point out, that is not what the rule says!

And my opinion, the granting of a timeout is when I acknowledge the request mentally, not when I blow the whistle.

As the timer gets some lag in stopping the clock, so do I.

Rich

I had a coach start yelling, "30, 30, 30". I didn't know what th' he!! the excitment was about at first. I noted what team had ball control & then ask the coach, "Do you want a Time Out?" He excitely said, "Yes!". I give a tweet & grant him a time out. During the TO I discuss what just happen with my P. We decide to let the coach know that he should say "Time Out." Part of the justification is, as far as we know he could be calling play # 30. This coach is a typical H. Monkey too.

Re: Philosophy or rule?
 

To quote NFHS R5-S8-A3a: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official: Grants a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when: The ball is in control or at the diposal of a player of his/her team. NCAA R5-S9-A3a and A4 address the same situations as NFHS R5-S8-A3a does.

This rule has always been interpreted to mean that the request must be made during player control or is at the team's disposal for a throw-in or a freethrow, not when the official signals for the time-out. To interpret the rule as you do would penalize the team requesting the time-out.

I am sure that must about all rules interpreters will agree with me that both the NFHS and NCAA language is not the clearest, but the intent is the same: grant the request if the request was made when there is player control or the ball is at the disposal of the thrower (throw-in or freethrow).

My sentiments exactly' you just beat me to it. How could an airborne player about to land out of bounds be granted a timeout otherwise?

Mregor

I have heard and watched coaches use many different motions and words to request a time out (sometimes very funny). In Minnesota a lot of times at the HS level we bring the coaches into the pre-game and I quickly mention to them that we must hear the words time out as well as see the signal. I also mention that if there is intense action on the court we as officials cannot be turning around to see if the howler is just going through one of his routines or is actually requesting a timeout. Players need to be aware of situations as well (or informed by their coach). I granted a timeout to a five-out call two years ago in a big tournament game and from that learning experience I make sure I understand exactly what the coach wants. It is his job to be clear not for us to be mindreaders.

As for the second part of this thread dealing w/ the lag time in hearing the timeout and granting it I definately agree that the timeout is granter when we visually or audibly see/hear the timeout request. The airborne player going out of bounds is an excellent example...

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.