Time out

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

It is clear to me when a coach makes the request and you grant it the play is dead.

And it is also clear to me that the play is dead when a foul or violation occurs and is subsequently called, but even so, these things are specified in 6-7. Why is the same not true for the timeout, which is further complicated by the fact that it can be improperly granted. A timeout whistled with the ball in the air could ultimately benefit either side, depending on what happens afterward.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

And it is also clear to me that the play is dead when a foul or violation occurs and is subsequently called, but even so, these things are specified in 6-7. Why is the same not true for the timeout, which is further complicated by the fact that it can be improperly granted. A timeout whistled with the ball in the air could ultimately benefit either side, depending on what happens afterward.

I see your point, but with other wording or understanding of timeouts that have been mentioned, I do not see why this would not apply to a timeout. And I see no case play that would make us do anything out of the ordinary. If they do not make it clear that something does not apply, I would think this is just a simple oversight. How else would we apply this in the first place when we have to recognized that a HC made the request clearly when their player had possession of the ball. Just because we blow the whistle and at the time we blow the whistle we only apply what has happened (like the ball in the air for a shot)? I am not so sure that makes sense.

Peace

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I see your point, but with other wording or understanding of timeouts that have been mentioned, I do not see why this would not apply to a timeout. And I see no case play that would make us do anything out of the ordinary. If they do not make it clear that something does not apply, I would think this is just a simple oversight. How else would we apply this in the first place when we have to recognized that a HC made the request clearly when their player had possession of the ball. Just because we blow the whistle and at the time we blow the whistle we only apply what has happened (like the ball in the air for a shot)? I am not so sure that makes sense.

Peace

Common sense dictates that recognition of a timeout is almost always going to come 1-2 seconds after it is called (unless it is called by the player with the ball. Any other time a timeout is requested verbally outside of your view, you need to make sure 1) there is player control and 2) that the correct team is calling the timeout, and 3) that it is a player on the floor or HC. This takes time. we can't just blow it dead whenever we hear timeout as it could have come from the wrong team, a fan or someone else not authorized or permitted by rule.

If you don't delay, coaches and fans will pick up on that and use it to gain an unfair advantage. The defense could use it to stop the clock if they are out of position or getting beat 3 on 1 in transition. It makes sense to delay. If anything, you should also note the time that the TO was recognized and add that time back on, but no one does that in practice unless it is an end of game sitch. Just my opinion.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

Common sense dictates that recognition of a timeout is almost always going to come 1-2 seconds after it is called (unless it is called by the player with the ball. Any other time a timeout is requested verbally outside of your view, you need to make sure 1) there is player control and 2) that the correct team is calling the timeout, and 3) that it is a player on the floor or HC. This takes time. we can't just blow it dead whenever we hear timeout as it could have come from the wrong team, a fan or someone else not authorized or permitted by rule.

If you don't delay, coaches and fans will pick up on that and use it to gain an unfair advantage. The defense could use it to stop the clock if they are out of position or getting beat 3 on 1 in transition. It makes sense to delay. If anything, you should also note the time that the TO was recognized and add that time back on, but no one does that in practice unless it is an end of game sitch. Just my opinion.

The coach isn't entitled to the clock stopping the instant he asks for a timeout. I have put time back on, but I'd never consider adding time from before my whistle blows - it's only when the timer is slow in stopping the clock.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich

The coach isn't entitled to the clock stopping the instant he asks for a timeout. I have put time back on, but I'd never consider adding time from before my whistle blows - it's only when the timer is slow in stopping the clock.

Because BY RULE you can't.
Officiating would be so much simpler if everyone would just follow the rules instead of trying to substitute what an individual thinks to be fair.
Applying the rules is what is fair.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Because BY RULE you can't.
Officiating would be so much simpler if everyone would just follow the rules instead of trying to substitute what an individual thinks to be fair.
Applying the rules is what is fair.

I officiate with the rule book. I don't have a bronzed copy sitting on a pedestal.

[rawhi1]

I've been taught to when you see a coach requesting a timeout especially when running or moving to frontcourt to turn and make sure that coaches player still control of ball. Many timeout are requested when defense traps or pressure or ball has gotten away from player. There is delay but u get it right. IMO.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Because BY RULE you can't.
Officiating would be so much simpler if everyone would just follow the rules instead of trying to substitute what an individual thinks to be fair.
Applying the rules is what is fair.

You, and nobody else follows the rules, 100%, all the time. Unless you're saying you call a 3 second violation at exactly 3 seconds...even if a player has just a heel in the paint. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

It makes sense to delay.

Originally Posted by Rich

The coach isn't entitled to the clock stopping the instant he asks for a timeout.

So this is ok? I had a game recently where a coach asked for a timeout. It took me almost two seconds to blow the whistle, cuz I was checking to make sure I could. The coach sarcastically laughed at me and asked "what took you so long, did you not hear me?" It was not a time-saving situation, so an extra two seconds running off didn't matter, but his reaction struck me as strange.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Rich

The coach isn't entitled to the clock stopping the instant he asks for a timeout. I have put time back on, but I'd never consider adding time from before my whistle blows - it's only when the timer is slow in stopping the clock.

5 seconds left A1 makes a bucket to go up by 1. You hear timout 3 times quickly by B Coach immediatley. You have definate knowledge that the request was made at 5.o seconds on the clock. You turn and verify that it is indeed the coach who has made the request. Whistle at 3.8 sec and then timer gets clock stopped at 3.2. What are you going to do in this sitch? Would anyone put time back to 5 or at least 3.8?

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

5 seconds left A1 makes a bucket to go up by 1. You hear timout 3 times quickly by B Coach immediatley. You have definate knowledge that the request was made at 5.o seconds on the clock. You turn and verify that it is indeed the coach who has made the request. Whistle at 3.8 sec and then timer gets clock stopped at 3.2. What are you going to do in this sitch? Would anyone put time back to 5 or at least 3.8?

If you see the time at the whistle, you can put that time back up.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

5 seconds left A1 makes a bucket to go up by 1. You hear timout 3 times quickly by B Coach immediatley. You have definate knowledge that the request was made at 5.o seconds on the clock. You turn and verify that it is indeed the coach who has made the request. Whistle at 3.8 sec and then timer gets clock stopped at 3.2. What are you going to do in this sitch? Would anyone put time back to 5 or at least 3.8?

BY RULE the referee should have the clock reset to 3.8, if one of the game officials observes it.

[Sharpshooternes]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

BY RULE the referee should have the clock reset to 3.8, if one of the game officials observes it.

What do you tell the coach who says, I was calling time out right at 5 seconds. You obviously heard me. Why do we only get 3.8 seconds?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Sharpshooternes

What do you tell the coach who says, I was calling time out right at 5 seconds. You obviously heard me. Why do we only get 3.8 seconds?

I'd have no issue telling the coach that BY RULE the clock stops when the whistle sounds, and he/she needs to account for the reaction time of the official when requesting a time-out.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by APG

You, and nobody else follows the rules, 100%, all the time. Unless you're saying you call a 3 second violation at exactly 3 seconds...even if a player has just a heel in the paint. Just saying.

Officials must observe several aspects of play at any point in the game and obviously not all of this can be done. There are times when an official's focus is on hand to arm contact, a foot or ball near a boundary, a pivot foot, or the ball near the ring which will cause some other action that possibly constitutes an infraction to be overlooked. This kind of prioritizing is a necessity of officiating and the better officials multi-task and make the best choices in what to watch and what to ignore.
So if I observe a 3 second violation, I most certainly will penalize it according to the rules. However, this would be a low priority item with me as I prefer to focus on illegal contact, screens, LGP, GT/BI, and the pivot foot. So I doubt that I will get around to noticing your heel in the lane for three seconds.

That is very different from what some have suggested here which is to deliberately and improperly misapply the rules because of a personal opinion as to what is fair or the right thing to do.