Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam
In this case, it seems to me that the timeout should be granted in the OP. I'd have to double check the rule and case play, but unless the case play specifically states that in this situation the timeout cannot be granted at the expense of the technical foul, we should grant it.
|
Normally, if a coach or a player calls timeout, say during the 4th qtr, and doesnt have one left, we grant the TO and it IS a T. They cant take it back. I think the case play 5.11.5b is there to address a situation where a coach,after he is told he has another timeout, says he wants to use it then and there and calls timeout. We are not supposed to say "fine its granted and now you have a T." We are to say the TO is not granted because the extra timeout we gave you cannot be used until the ball becomes live in OT.
This is likely where the case play stops because no coach in his right mind is going to persist and say well i want another TO at the expense of a technical. It just wont happen. The team could foul the moment the ball was tossed if they wanted to. Then use the extra TO.
If a coach was dumb enough to ask for another TO after learning he cant use the extra one i might let him. Not sure though that it meets the definition of an "excess" timeout as i mentioned earlier. Thx