I assume that by your evaluator's first comment, about simultaneous violation/time out, that the default in this situation is that the whistles were simultaneous? This seems similar to the situation where you do not agree who touched the ball last going OOB it is a held ball and is inherently logical. There must be a case on simultaneous whistles somewhere and their precedence?
For arguments sake, assume my understanding of what you were told is correct, that in the absence of knowledge the whistles are considered simultaneous and the violation as precedence over the timeout. Then we can reverse the facts (which neither official knew at the moment of truth on the court), have the time out come first and the violation second, neither referee knew which came first, rule it a simultaneous whistle and you charge the violation. That makes you wrong by what transpired in real time on the court, but correct by rule in how you deal with lack of adequate knowledge about what transpired. What I am saying, is this advice from your evaluator gets the call right only in the circumstance that you outlined, but puts you in the right by rule all of the time. You already have a problem, knowing the appropriate way to resolve your uncertainty it is the best you can hope for, even if it doesn't guarantee that the call you make will represent what actually occurred.
|