Thread: Does
View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jan 18, 2006, 04:05pm
JRutledge JRutledge is offline
Do not give a damn!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: On the border
Posts: 30,463
I think the word "shall" is to give the officials wiggle room for their judgment. I think that is why they do not use the words "must" because the word "must" suggests that you have no choice. Well most of the decision we make are about judgment and choice to make a certain call. That is just how I see it.

I also would have granted the timeout. If you do not grant an obvious request for a timeout, someone can always say you had some nefarious reason for not doing so. Not calling a timeout in this situation will call into question other things you might have done throughout the game. Also if the game is taped and you ignore the request, that just adds to the validity of the argument that you did not give a timeout for some arterial motive. It is the job of the teams to know their timeout status and if they call a timeout they do not have, they will suffer the consequences. It is not like they are going to get the ball back. They are going to lose the ball or not get the ball after FTs and a throw-in. Give them the timeout and let the chips fall where they may after that. Now this is my opinion, I am sure others will disagree. I just think you will have a better case to cover yourself if this issue is reported. At least granting the timeout you can always say you did what the rule clearly says to do.

Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
Reply With Quote