I see absolutely no reason to change this rule. As stated above, there are similar situations that no one ever mentions. What about the player on the floor with the ball who is about to get tied up, requesting a timeout? Are we to judge that we shouldn't grant a timeout if we infer the player is about to commit a turnover or get tied up?
Let's say they change the rule and a player is in the air on his way OOB (you think), requests the TO and you don't give it to him and he then, somehow, lands inbounds. Is this any different than a player who catches the ball in the air in the middle of the court and requests one while airborne?
What about a player who is one second away from a five second inbound violation? Actually, this used to be a rule a long time ago and was changed, thank goodness.
In order to be consistent in the rule, you'd have to change the rule so it covered every possible situation in which it appears a player is about to commit a turnover. That would be not only impossible to do, but ridiculous.
Actually - the defining point for me is if a player is willing to accept burning a timeout to avoid a turnover, that's his decision.
Now - if you really want to change an inequitable rule, let's talk once again about changing the loss of possession penalty on technical fouls. Oh wait - I've been advocating for this for many years and it's still there. Never mind.
__________________
Yom HaShoah
|