Quote:
Originally Posted by tref
Just like saving a foul or putting a foul on the defender with the least amount of fouls when more than one is at the scene of the crime. Whats viewed as good game management by some can be viewed as integrity issues by others.
Know who you're working for as well as their isms & expectations!
|
It is quite different to choose which foul or infraction to penalize when you have a choice vs. making something up or doing nothing when it is clear that something occurred that should be penalized.
Now, back to my question....when the ball is dead and the clock is not running, exactly what unfair advantage is the current rule penalizing when an excess timeout is requested. Assume that the request is unambiguous and is not complicated by other factors.....i.e., you've just finished reporting a foul and the coach both visually and verbally makes the timeout request where everyone in the gym can see it. You start to report the timeout and the table informs you that the team has no timeouts remaining. Why not change the rule to just resume play unless the coach wants the timeout in exchange for a T. A T for that seems like overkill.
However, if the ball is live or the clock is running, the whistle that comes in response to the request changes the game. It stops the clock or it gets the team out of a precarious situation. That can certainly be an advantage.