Coach requests a timeout

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

There's no such thing as a coach's challenge in basketball. If you want to stop play in order to check on a correctable error that's fine, but if a team is out of timeouts you don't give them one... for anything.

Incorrect on both counts. They can challenge. And you give a team as many timeouts as they ask for...10, 15, 20. There is no limit. However, everyone above 5 comes at the expense of a technical foul. Even so, they get it.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I'm not saying I'm right, but where is this "coaches challenge" type thing you're talking about?

If a coach wants to check on a rule that's fine, but that's not the same as a time out being charged based on whether he was right or not.

10.1.7 only refers to a tech being charged for requesting an excess timeout. Nothing about it relating to a CE or other rule question by a coach.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

look at 5-8-4 and 5-11-4 through six or so i think. the coach is allowed to make an "appeal" to the official at table. other coach allowed to be present.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by johnny d

It is a good thing you aren't saying you are right, because you are not right. Perhaps you should spend a little more time in the rule book before making such bold statements.

It would be great if some people could just answer a question without being an ass about it.

You make coming here SO much better.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

There's no such thing as a coach's challenge in basketball. If you want to stop play in order to check on a correctable error that's fine, but if a team is out of timeouts you don't give them one... for anything.

Dead wrong.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Guys! Guys!! Yes, Bryan got the interpretation wrong. BUT!! I do not like the phrase "coach's challenge) because that phrase or the word "challenge" is not used in the Rules Book.

The Rules allow the HC to request Table Personnel to notify the GOs that a CE has been made. There is nothing in the rules that allows a "coach's challenge".

MTD, Sr.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Guys! Guys!! Yes, Bryan got the interpretation wrong. BUT!! I do not like the phrase "coach's challenge) because that phrase or the word "challenge" is not used in the Rules Book.

The Rules allow the HC to request Table Personnel to notify the GOs that a CE has been made. There is nothing in the rules that allows a "coach's challenge".

MTD, Sr.

5-8-4 The "appeal'...shall be made at table.....

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

There correct answer to your question is as follows:

1) The Rules (NFHS and NCAA Men's/Women's) allows Team A's HC to leave Team A's Bench Area to confer with Table Personnel to request a TO with regard to a possible CE (or AP Arrow mistake).

2) Upon being notified of A-HC's request, the Game Officials (GOs) will instruct the Timer to start timing a TO: i) if Team A has any Full TOs the Timer will start timing a Full TO; or ii) if Team A has only Thirty-Second TOs left the Timer will start timing a Thirty-Second TO; or if Team A has no TOs left then the Timer will start timing a Full TO.

3) If there is a CE and it is discovered before the CE time limit has expired, the CE is corrected and Team A is not charged with a TO and the game is resumed immediately.

4a) If there is a CE and it is discovered after the CE time limit has expired, the CE cannot be corrected, and Team A is charged with a TO.

4b) If there is no CE, Team A is charged with a TO.

If 4a or 4b occurs and there is time remaining in the TO, Team A is entitled to the remaining time in the TO based upon whether the TO is either (i), (ii), or (iii).

If 4a or 4b occurs and there is no time remaining in the TO, and the game is resumed immediately.

If (iii) occurs in either 4a or 4b Team A is charged with an excess TO. And the game is resumed with Team B shooting FTs as the result of the TF due to Team A's excess TO.

The applicable NFHS Rules are: R2-S10; R5-S8-A4; and R10-S5-A1c.

MTD, Sr.

Thank you.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BigCat

look at 5-8-4 and 5-11-4 through six or so i think. the coach is allowed to make an "appeal" to the official at table. other coach allowed to be present.

And thank you. The part I was missing is the exception listed in 5.11.4

And for the record, I'm not all knowing. I'm fully aware that I will make mistakes. If some people around here could be a little less abrasive that would be great. This isn't reddit or the comment section of YouTube.

Am I wrong that we, as colleagues, should show more support for one another, rather than act like this is a contest on who is knowledgeable and who isn't?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

And thank you. The part I was missing is the exception listed in 5.11.4

And for the record, I'm not all knowing. I'm fully aware that I will make mistakes. If some people around here could be a little less abrasive that would be great. This isn't reddit or the comment section of YouTube.

Am I wrong that we, as colleagues, should show more support for one another, rather than act like this is a contest on who is knowledgeable and who isn't?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Support for one another also includes not telling a whole bunch of veteran officials they are wrong about a rule.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Support also includes not telling a whole bunch of veteran officials they are wrong about a rule you have never looked up.

I never said anyone was wrong. I wrongly answered a question, misunderstood some replies (without getting personal) , then admitted I may be wrong. But I never came out and said anything like you're "dead wrong" or "you obviously didn't read the whole rule", etc.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

And thank you. The part I was missing is the exception listed in 5.11.4

I don't see a 5.11.4. I do see a 5-11-4. And, yes, it makes a difference. And, it's the FED notation -- see the Foreword to the case book.

Finally, while I might (or might not) have found a different way to express it, I agree with the sentiment expressed by johnny and badnewsref in this thread.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't see a 5.11.4. I do see a 5-11-4. And, yes, it makes a difference. And, it's the FED notation -- see the Foreword to the case book.

Finally, while I might (or might not) have found a different way to express it, I agree with the sentiment expressed by johnny and badnewsref in this thread.

OK. I was the ass. My apologies. I do feel some people can be abrasive, but apparently this time it was me in the wrong.

And I always forget which is dashes and which is periods.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Guys! Guys!! Yes, Bryan got the interpretation wrong. BUT!! I do not like the phrase "coach's challenge) because that phrase or the word "challenge" is not used in the Rules Book.

The Rules allow the HC to request Table Personnel to notify the GOs that a CE has been made. There is nothing in the rules that allows a "coach's challenge".

MTD, Sr.

The OP did not say "coach's challenge," that was Bryan's wording when he said it's not allowed.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Adam

The OP did not say "coach's challenge," that was Bryan's wording when he said it's not allowed.

I never mentioned the OP, but I was referring to what Bryan had said.

MTD, Sr.

[billyu2]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

OK. I was the ass. My apologies. I do feel some people can be abrasive, but apparently this time it was me in the wrong.

And I always forget which is dashes and which is periods.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

"Case in Point" might be helpful in reminding you that periods . . . Refer to the Case Book.