Thirty Second Timeout ...

[Nevadaref]

Not at all. The only requirement is that the five players remain standing. Everyone else may stand if they wish or may remain sitting if they wish.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Not at all. The only requirement is that the five players remain standing. Everyone else may stand if they wish or may remain sitting if they wish.

Thanks Nevadaref. I thought so. It was interpreted a different way at our local monthly meeting this morning (I know, Sunday morning, not cool). I will get it straightened out.

[BillyMac]

I am having a tough time convincing the local powers that be that substitutes, and coaches, are allowed to stand during a thirty second timeout. Dissecting the language of the 5-11-3 won't convince them. I no longer have my written notes from the 1997-98 season (I ran out of room in my notebook, bought a new notebook, never thought that I would need the old notes).

Anybody have a caseplay, or an interpretation, that could help me plead my case? Help. I'm as desperate as those Desperate Housewives.

[Rob1968]

Take a look at 10-4-4: Bench personnel, including the head coach, shall not: . . . Stand at the team bench while the clock is running or is stopped, and must remain seated, except:
c. During a charged time-out, as in 5-11, (which defines time-outs), or the intermission between quarters and extra periods.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Take a look at 10-4-4: Bench personnel, including the head coach, shall not: . . . Stand at the team bench while the clock is running or is stopped, and must remain seated, except:
c. During a charged time-out, as in 5-11, (which defines time-outs), or the intermission between quarters and extra periods.

Thanks, but I was hoping for something with more pizazz.

[Rob1968]

Billy, if it ain't illegal, it must be legal . . .

[TimTaylor]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks, but I was hoping for something with more pizazz.

Billy,

It's unfortunate that people try to read things into the rule that aren't there.

As Rob stated, 10-4-4 states that bench personnel may stand during a charged time out. It does not differentiate between 30 sec. and 60 sec. time outs, so applies to both.

The provisions of 5-11-3 only apply to "players", saying they must remain standing during a 30 second time out - it has nothing to do with bench personnel, who are covered by 10-4-4. It also has no effect on 60 sec. tiimeouts - players may stand or sit as they choose.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by TimTaylor

It's unfortunate that people try to read things into the rule that aren't there.

It's frustrating for me, a journeyman official who is pretty good (not great) at rules, and interpretations, to convince a top notch official who knows, by heart, 99.9% of the rules, and interruptions, that he is mistaken in this one case. If I push too hard, I'm liable to be labeled as a "rules guy" (good at rules, incapable of working real games).

[PG_Ref]

The intent of the rule is to point out that during a 30 sec T.O., the players who were on the court are not allowed to be seated. It does not mean that bench personnel are not allowed to stand during a charged timeout


See rule 10-4-4

ART. 4

The head coach is responsible for his/her own conduct and behavior, as well as substitutes, disqualified team members and all other bench personnel. Bench personnel, including the head coach, shall not:

Stand at the team bench while the clock is running or is stopped, and must remain seated, except:

a. The head coach as in 10-5-1.

b. When a team member is reporting to the scorer's table.

c. During a charged time-out, as in 5-11, or the intermission between quarters and extra periods.

d. To spontaneously react to an outstanding play by a team member or to acknowledge a replaced player(s), but must immediately return to his/her seat.

PENALTY: (Arts. 1, 2, 3, 4) Two free throws plus the ball for a division-line throw-in. If the head coach is the offender, the foul is charged directly to him/her. The foul is charged to the offender (if not the head coach) and also charged indirectly to the head coach. (Art. 1g) Flagrant foul, the offender is disqualified. If the offender is bench personnel, each foul is also charged indirectly to the head coach.

[BillyMac]

Thanks guys, but, as I said, dissecting rule language won't help.

I really need a caseplay, interpretation, or a test question, to be convincing.

[j51969]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks Nevadaref. I thought so. It was interpreted a different way at our local monthly meeting this morning (I know, Sunday morning, not cool). I will get it straightened out.

Basketball must be easy to officiate in your neck of the woods. This seems like a wierd nit to pick even if it wasn't allowed. Much less bring about that much discussion at a local meeting that people were at odds on how to rule on it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by j51969

Basketball must be easy to officiate in your neck of the woods. This seems like a weird nit to pick even if it wasn't allowed. Much less bring about that much discussion at a local meeting that people were at odds on how to rule on it.

Not really a discussion. Question was brought up. It was answered by the powers that be that, by rule, only five could stand, but we would make an exception locally and allow the entire team to stand. More than 300 members sat there and said nothing while I said to myself "What the ...?". I waited to get home to double check my interpretation, emailed my constructive criticism to the powers that be, was dismissed, asked for a double check, was dismissed again, until I emailed the 2001-02 Rule Book Comments, after which I was thanked for straightening it out.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Not really a discussion. Question was brought up. It was answered by the powers that be that, by rule, only five could stand, but we would make an exception locally and allow the entire team to stand. More than 300 members sat there and said nothing while I said to myself "What the ...?". I waited to get home to double check my interpretation, emailed my constructive criticism to the powers that be, was dismissed, asked for a double check, was dismissed again, until I emailed the 2001-02 Rule Book Comments, after which I was thanked for straightening it out.

This was a strange one Billy. The rules on this are really clear. If your "powers that be" needed that old comment to be convinced they probably shouldn't be "the powers that be."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

This was a strange one Billy. The rules on this are really clear. If your "powers that be" needed that old comment to be convinced they probably shouldn't be "the powers that be."

The real problem is if these are the same people who were in charge back in 2006 when BillyMac first brought this issue before the forum. It was answered then, so these folks shouldn't need the same question answered again.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The real problem is if these are the same people who were in charge back in 2006 when BillyMac first brought this issue before the forum. It was answered then, so these folks shouldn't need the same question answered again.

Make a note of it. It will likely come up again in 2026.