[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I don't have my book here, but the case play is what gives permission to grant the timeout. Why would it give permission to do what's already beend one, if as you say, "granted" means actually reporting the TO.
Now, in a blow-out, it's no big deal either way. In a tight game, however, you could have just allowed B to set up a press, new defense, get quick coaching instructions, etc., and B gets all this without burning a TO. I don't know if that's why the Fed rules this way, but it's why I like it.

It does not "give permission" to grant the timeout. It says you have to honor the timeout since you've already granted it.

The point I'm bringing up is what if you haven't granted it?