Time Out

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Adam

It really depends on how the rule reads. If a team ends regulation with a timeout remaining, can they use it before the ball becomes live to start OT?

Yes, as long as it is the first time out called after regulation ends it would not be considered successive. Only the extra timeout granted at end of regulation cannot be used before ball becomes live.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Yes, as long as it is the first time out called after regulation ends it would not be considered successive. Only the extra timeout granted at end of regulation cannot be used before ball becomes live.

Rule citation please.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

Rule citation please.

Can i send you a bill for the cite?:roll eyes:

5-11-5 tells you the additional 60 second TO cannot be granted until ball becomes live in extra period. Art 7 says successive timeouts can't be granted after expiration of playing time for 4th qtr or OT. 4-43-2 tells you what a successive TO is….

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

Yes, as long as it is the first time out called after regulation ends it would not be considered successive. Only the extra timeout granted at end of regulation cannot be used before ball becomes live.

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.

[BigCat]

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BigCat

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.

I agree. I think it's meant to stop a coach from accidentally costing himself a T, but if a coach asks for the TO knowing full well the cost, I'd be inclined to grant it.

[mlv28]

BigCat. That was the exact conversation we were having while discussing this. The kicker being what would you do if the coach insisted on the timeout at the expense of a T.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by mlv28

BigCat. That was the exact conversation we were having while discussing this. The kicker being what would you do if the coach insisted on the timeout at the expense of a T.

I don't think it will ever happen because there just isn't any benefit for a coach to start an OT with a T. If someone really wants the TO for a T I'm not going to fight to protect him from himself. I'd give it to him and wouldn't worry if it was covered by rule to do it.

It might not clearly be an "excess" timeout but I just wouldn't worry about it. If I try to deny it I risk causing a blowup over trying to prevent him from doing something stupid. Give him his TO and the other team 2 shots and the ball.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by mlv28

BigCat. That was the exact conversation we were having while discussing this. The kicker being what would you do if the coach insisted on the timeout at the expense of a T.

I rarely give coaches strategy advice, but I'd be tempted to say:
"Coach, have one or more of your players commit a jump ball violation after the ball leaves my hand. Then you can call a timeout. Yes, you lose the jump ball (which would also happen with a TF), but it saves you two free throws and I don't have to ignore any rules."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Altor

I rarely give coaches strategy advice, but I'd be tempted to say:
"Coach, have one or more of your players commit a jump ball violation after the ball leaves my hand. Then you can call a timeout. Yes, you lose the jump ball (which would also happen with a TF), but it saves you two free throws and I don't have to ignore any rules."

You would say all that?

I would think it's pretty simple. "By rule we cannot not grant you that timeout until OT commences."