TO request when you have no timeouts

[ballgame99]

I was discussing this situation with a fellow official; Team A is out of timeouts, and I know this. If A1 requests a timeout do I A) ignore it since I know they don't have any, or B) grant it, and immediately T them?

[scrounge]

You grant it and assess the T....they're allowed to call a TO, the price of that is just a T in this case.

[Raymond]

And the T is administered after the time-out.

[deecee]

I've heard several officials say they would ignore it. That's pure baloney. The coach is requesting a TO, and as long as he can legally make the request we grant it to him.

[so cal lurker]

Remember the famous Chris Webber TO?

I've seen teams deliberately do this a couple of times. For example, if a team scores to pull within 1 with fewer than 5 seconds left -- othewise (if the other team is smart) the clock will simply run out.

There was a famous game 30 years ago in the NBA where a team (Phoenix) was down 1 with 1 second left when the other team scored. They called a TO because of NBA rules that advance the ball to half court on a TO -- and tied the game after the opponent made the one FT from the T. (That game led to an NBA rule change that the ball did not advance on an excess TO.)

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by deecee

I've heard several officials say they would ignore it. That's pure baloney. The coach is requesting a TO, and as long as he can legally make the request we grant it to him.

This situation involves a player but you can say the same thing applies.

For me, it depends on the situation. If it's a half hearted attempt to call a timeout I may ignore the first request but if its repeated and/or adamant then you really have no choice but to grant it.

[APG]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

There was a famous game 30 years ago in the NBA where a team (Phoenix) was down 1 with 1 second left when the other team scored. They called a TO because of NBA rules that advance the ball to half court on a TO -- and tied the game after the opponent made the one FT from the T. (That game led to an NBA rule change that the ball did not advance on an excess TO.)

At least under current rules, advancing the ball wouldn't be an option cause an excessive TO results in a T and the ball to the non offending team.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by APG

At least under current rules, advancing the ball wouldn't be an option cause an excessive TO results in a T and the ball to the non offending team.

Interesting -- I'd missed that change. So the NBA creates a turnover for an excessive TO, but not for an unsporting T.

[VaTerp]

Also, just to be clear. In the NBA they advance the ball to the 28 foot mark not half court.

[Rufus]

This is why I've never worried too much about the number of timeouts left for each team (other than perhaps knowing if they have any left so we know to call a T if they request timeout). Coach/player on the court requests it, we grant it. How they "pay" for it (either with an available TO or a T) is not what I'm thinking about at the time they request it.

[APG]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Interesting -- I'd missed that change. So the NBA creates a turnover for an excessive TO, but not for an unsporting T.

They don't want a team being able to benefit, even at the expense of giving up a potential point...for their lack of proper timeout management.

And VaTerp is also correct...a team advances the ball to the 28 foot mark...not halfcourt...a 19 foot difference!

[mutantducky]

so if you grant them a TO, is it a 30 or full?

I've never had this, I've just thought it would have been a semi-TO, by that I mean the coach calls his plays over while things are sorted out with the FT shooting.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Rufus

This is why I've never worried too much about the number of timeouts left for each team (other than perhaps knowing if they have any left so we know to call a T if they request timeout). Coach/player on the court requests it, we grant it. How they "pay" for it (either with an available TO or a T) is not what I'm thinking about at the time they request it.

By rule we are to notify the HC when the team has used its final allowable timeout but otherwise I agree.

I work games with people that during timeouts or other deal ball situations say, "Team A has 2 fulls and a 30 and B has blah blah blah...."

I say thats nice but I only care when they have zero. It is helpful to know when both 30s have been used so you can automatically award a full but otherwise I only want to know when they are done.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by mutantducky

so if you grant them a TO, is it a 30 or full?

I've never had this, I've just thought it would have been a semi-TO, by that I mean the coach calls his plays over while things are sorted out with the FT shooting.

Since the rule says they shall be granted at the expense of the T, it would seem to me that they get whichever type of TO they called. It doesn't say they only get a 30.

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

By rule we are to notify the HC when the team has used its final allowable timeout but otherwise I agree.

I work games with people that during timeouts or other deal ball situations say, "Team A has 2 fulls and a 30 and B has blah blah blah...."

I say thats nice but I only care when they have zero. It is helpful to know when both 30s have been used so you can automatically award a full but otherwise I only want to know when they are done.

I suspect that folks do that as a habit to make sure they are in fact aware when the team gets down to one.