A time out with a twist.
 

6th Grade boys.

Smaller A1 has a pass batted back towards him, he and a larger B1 wrangle for the ball in the air, and A1 lands a bit awkwardly and off balance near the sideline. He looks right at me with a a grimace and puts his hands together indicating time-out, which I grant.

Then he walks towards his bench, hobbling like an old geezer! I didn't recognize him to be hurt, but hurt he was.

I confer with partner and we agree this time-out won't be charged to Team A, but rather be an official's time out to get a new player in for A1. Partner said he would for this rec game, but wouldn't for a high school game. My feeling is I would do the same in a high school game.

Interested in others feedback.

I would give the time out back too...much in similar fashion if an opposing coach called a timeout for an injured player on the other team.

I would not. If a player is hurt that an opposing coach calls a timeout then the officials haven't done their job and that's a whole different matter.

In the stitch above the timeout WILL stand.

Time After Time ...
 

How many times have we heard a player say, "Time out. I need to tie my shoe", during a clock stopped, dead ball. Do we always charge the time out because the words, "time out", were stated?

That seems to me to be a different play -- one in which the TO is NOT granted in the first place.

Given that it was granted in the OP, with out being called for an injury (at the time), I think it needs to stand.

Are you really comparing apples to oranges?

We? Maybe it is just you, do not see players ask for a timeout because of this. And if they request one they better learn to tie a shoe better.

Peace

6th grade game, I wouldn't charge the TO to team A.

JV/Varsity it would be a HTBT situation (assuming you KNOW that A1 is injured). Consider the example of how we allow the continuing action when a player goes down if there's no risk of further injury to that player. If, in this case, there's no real possibility of continuing action, I'd treat is as your standard injury timeout. If there's a chance for continuing action without further risk to the player (doubtful, since apparently he has the ball) I'd charge the TO to Team A.

Note to self: Tell kids to hobble to the bench after every time they call a time out.

In the case where I'd charge an injury timeout, I'm not going to allow the coach to act as if it's a regular timeout. If that kid hobbles to the bench, we're resuming play right away just would happen with any other timeout for injury.

I had something like this last year, but even more weird.

A-1 inbounds to A-2, near Team A's bench. Right then, Coach A says to me, "Stop the clock. There's an shoe untied."

The coach got nothing from me but an odd look. Play continued.

Did he call you "McFly" during this conversation?

Time Marches On ...
 

First of all, in a real game, I'm not charging a timeout in this situation. I'm just telling him to tie his shoe.

Secondly, by the book, why is the timeout not granted in this case. Clock stopped. Dead ball. What rule prevents an official from granting a timeout here.

From the OP, I think the timeout should stand.

I've never seen a player who is truly hurt request a timeout - they typically are more worried about what's wrong with them and know the officials will shut it down.

I wouldn't make a habit of doing it, but I've got no problem with retracting the TO in an isolated case. If I do, the player has to be replaced, however.