[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I re-read 2016-17 NFHS Basketball POE Item (1) this morning and found what I believe are four relative sentences to our debate. I know that I have already made one long comment in this Thread but since this Thread has gone into multi-OT, why not keep this party going. So please be patient with me as everyone knows I love the sound of my voice.

I am not going to do any multi-quotes but will give the Page and Comment numbers and the Date and Time that it was posted of any Comment that I believe are relevant (footnotes so to speak). The relevant multi-quotes are:

I) The Original Comment that started this party was by Shane O, which is on Page 1, Comment #1, on Fri., Jan. 18, 2019, at 10:002amEST.

II) I added my first two cents on Page 2, Comment #19, Fri., Jan. 18, 2019, at 06:53pmEST.

III) My fellow NE Ohioan, BillyU, then commented on my Comment #19, on Page 2, Comment #25, Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 11:21amEST.

IV) My good friend and fellow IAABO member, BillyMac, on Page 2, Comment #27, Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 12:44pmEST, posted 2016-17 NFHS Basketball POE Item (1), which I will post, again, later in my Comment.

V) Camron Rust, made that same point that my Comment #19 made in his Comment #28, on Page 2, Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 01:09pmEST.

VI) BillyU replied to Camron's Comment #28 with Comment #29, on Page 2, on Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 02:16pmEST.

VII) BillyU's Comment #29 prompted So Cal Lurker's Comment #30, on Page 2, on Sun., Jan. 20, 2019, at 03:34pmEST.

VIII) I then posted one of my numerous opus magnus. See Comment #35, on Page 3, Tue., Jan. 22, Jan. 22, 2019, 01:54pmEST. This Comment also included Side Note 1 regarding my experience with HCs requesting TOs.

IX) My Comment #35 prompted BillyU to give us three very good Situations to consider in his Comment #36, on Page 3, Wed., Jan. 23, 2019, at 01:11pmEST.

X) And BillyU's Comment #36 prompted my Comment #42, on Page 3, Wed., Jan. 23, 2019, at 05:30pmEST.

XI) At this point BillyMac made a series of Comments defending the position that, while the A-HC's TO request was made while A1 had PC, if during the verification process before the Official can sound his whistle to grant A-HC's TO request, A1 loses PC (including a) Team A still has TC, or b) B1 gains PC), A-HC's request cannot be granted. BillyMac's position is the reason for my long comment today.

XII) And then yesterday, Fri., Jan. 25, 2019, at 07:27pm, I posted Comment #72.

Which, once again, brings us to 2016-17 NFHS Basketball POE Item (1):

1. Acknowledging and Granting Timeout criteria. Granting a time-out is an aspect of the game allowed by rule where knowledge of ball position, player control and dead/live ball criteria can all be factors in awarding the requested timeout. Consideration has been given regarding continuing the opportunity for a head coach to call a time-out. The committee wanted to maintain the current time-out criteria. When a ball is live, player control is required. A player or the head coach of the team in possession may request and be granted a time-out. When the ball is dead, the crew must maintain its coverage areas on the court but also be aware of the opportunity for a head coach to request a time-out. This request can be oral or visual, but must be verified by the ruling official. If the request meets criteria, a time-out should be granted.

I have highlighted in red four sentences in Item (1) that are relevant to our discussion: Live Ball TO Requests.

Sentence 1: When a ball is live, player control is required. We can all agree that this is the prime requirement for Team A, to be in TC, to have its TO Request to be Granted, whether a Player of Team A or A-HC is making the Request.

Sentence 2: A player or the head coach of the team in possession may request and be granted a time-out. Sentences 1 and 2 go hand-in-hand.

Let us look at Sentences 1 and 2:
i) If there is no TC Team A's TO Request cannot be Granted.

ii) If there is TC then there also must be PC at the moment of Team A's TO Request for Team A's TO Request can be Granted.


Sentence 3: This request can be oral or visual, but must be verified by the ruling official. This sentence is the primary driving force in our discussion: The word "verified". The word "verified" leads to the question: What are the Officials "verifying?

Sentence 4: If the request meets criteria, a time-out should be granted. This sentence is the secondary driving force in our discussion: The word "criteria". The word "criteria" leads to the question: What are the "criteria" and how does it relate to "verifying"?

Let us look at Sentences 3 and 4:

iii) Sentence 4 is straight forward: It has to be "who" and "when" a TO can be requested during a Live Ball, see the above Item (ii).

iv) How do we answer the question regarding the word "verify" in Sentence 3?

The question in Sentence 3 has two possible answers.

1) First Requirement: Verify that there is PC a the moment the TO Request is made; Second Requirement: Verify that either a Player or the HC is making the Request; and Third Requirement: Verify that there is still PC after the Second Requirement has be met. If all three Requirements are met: Grant the TO. If only the first two Requirements are met: Do not Grant the TO. This is BillyMac's position from what I have gleaned from his Comments. If I am incorrect about his position I am sure that I will get an email from him letting me know what a doddering old fool I am (and I am a doddering old fool).

2) First Requirement: Verify that there is PC at the moment the TO is made, and Second Requirement: Verify that either a Player or the HC is making the Request. If both Requirements are met: Grant the TO.


I take the position of the Second Answer because: We know that we would not even entertain a Team's TO Request if none of its Players do not have PC. Therefore, if a Team does make its TO Request while it has PC, why would we deny its Request in the short time interval it takes to verify that its HC is the one that is making the TO Request.

MTD, Sr.