View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Dec 28, 2006, 03:44pm
Back In The Saddle Back In The Saddle is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In a little pink house
Posts: 5,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Disagree. The better solution would be just to revert to the old rule and forget about letting the head coach call a TO. Hell, even the FED is finally starting to admit that they screwed up when they changed this rule, as per the POE in this year's rule book.

GRANTING TIME_OUTS. "Coaches attempting to call a time-out during playing action are a continuing problem. When player control is lost, officials must concentrate on playing action while attempting to determine if a time-out should be granted. Coaches should recognize that a request for a time-out does not guarantee that a time-out will be granted until player control is clearly established. Officials should not grant a time-out until player control is clearly established."

Add that on to the fact that you also have to verify that it is indeed the head coach who is requesting the TO, and not an assistant coach, sub, trainer or some doofus fan sitting in the second row behind the bench. It all adds up to a really stoopid rule imo. And a stoopid rule that is also a pain-in-the-butt to administer.
I would agree that it's a bad rule. When I suggested the need to better define "grant" I was thinking mostly about the OP and the falling OOB scenario. But I admit to liberally mixing several scenarios in my analysis of JAR's proposed rule change.

If I had to prioritize my wishes, getting rid of the HC timeout request would rank waaaaay above better defining "grant." I think it's well enough understood by most people as it is.
__________________
"It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best." - W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote