View Single Post
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Nov 16, 1999, 10:38pm
ken roberts ken roberts is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 83
Post

Bob, please take a look at the Federation case book, caes # 5.11.3a AND 5.11.3B.

Richard, please take another look at cases 5.11.3A and 5.11.3B. In both cases one time-out was properly granted after the expiration of playing time. It's the second, or successive, time-out request that is denied.

Also, note that Rule 5.12.3 states: "Successive time-outs shall not be granted..." If no time-outs were to be granted at all, the word "successive" would have been deleted...
Reply With Quote