[JRutledge]

I am not sure we can call a violation after the fact when no violation was called in the first place. Of course you might "know the rule" but you have not called a violation at all. My understanding of the timeout to correct a ruling is when we misapply the rule, not to debate a judgment call. I would think if the violation is not called, then you cannot come back later and say, "Oh btw, there was a violation." Unless you can show some evidence of such a scenario in the casebook (or other ruling reference) then it would be hard to come back and call a violation after the fact.

Peace