Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
I don't believe that it is the same because there is no live ball time between when the request is made and when the time-out is granted. Both are occurring during the same dead ball period. That is the difference to me.
|
This is where it's not clear to me, because I don't see it as the same dead ball period. There's the dead ball period where the TO is originally granted (perhaps a violation). Then there's the dead ball period of the TO. There's the period within the TO where a sub cannot enter the game (after the first warning horn). Different dead ball periods that allow for different things to happen; for example, during the first dead ball period (after the violation is called), would you allow for players to sit on the bench? Of course, during the next dead ball period, when the first TO is granted, players can sit on the bench, but you wouldn't allow them to be anywhere on the floor like you would during the first dead ball period. Different dead ball periods, even though happening consecutively. Just like two TO's - it's not the same TO period, it's two different TO periods happening consecutively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref
He asked for two. He gets two. If he is ready early and so is the other team, then we can short the second one and resume play, but it is still being charged. Too late to change his mind.
|
So, if a coach asks for a TO on the made FT (which is requested and granted during a dead ball period), then they change their mind after the made FT, would you still grant it/charge it? What rule/case play backs you up either way?
Again, there seems to be a chance for problems that could be avioded by simply making sure the request for the second TO happens during a period after the first TO is done. For me, that could simply be a nod from the huddle that yes, they do want that second TO.