You cannot legally request a time-out during a live ball until there is player control. There is a time element in gaining control. There is a time element in requesting a time-out. To say both happened simultaneously without any time elapsing is a stretch.

From what I can gather here, there doesn't seem to be any rule or standard for how much time to take off in this situation, so rather than make a guess in the form of tenths of a second, they leave it as is. That doesn't make much sense either, but if there were a standard, I'm sure they would have gone with it.

The case book says that something needs to come off: In (c), the official may put the correct time on the clock, but must make some allowance for the touching by A1 – likely 10ths of a second, if displayed. The ball is put in play nearest to where it was located when the stoppage occurred to correct the timing mistake. A “do over” is not permitted in (c), since the throw-in had ended. (4-36; 5-10-1)

So, to leave it as is, is not acceptable.

That is not the definition of definite knowledge.

Definite knowledge is not the key term here, but rather "must make some allowance for the touching."

How much allowance? Apparently it's anybody's guess.

Fair enough, but it seems like there should be a set standard for the time it takes to acquire possession at least.

Which is what I wrote back in post #11.

Is anyone disagreeing with this? I'm not.

I doubt anyone here will disagree with that. But until such a time with do have some guidance to lean on from the case play cited earlier. We have to officiate in the hear and now when on the court and make some decisions on our feet.

Someone needs to nudge those coaches and administrators on the rules committee into addressing the situation.