Time Out
 

Discussion between a group of officials. End of regulation and before the first overtime. Coach of team A has used all his timeouts and has been advised that he has one additional full time out, which can only be used after the ball has become live to start the first overtime. Coach of team A requests a time out before the start of the overtime and understands that it will result in a technical foul. Some officials say that you can't grant the time out, others say you can. Casebook play 5.11.5 was used in the discussion, with some officials saying that the play applied to only not granting the additional time out, while others felt it applied to any timeout request. Thoughts?

If you look at 5.11.5 A you will see that a team has all of its timeouts When it wants to call a timeout before ball becomes live to start the game. Even though they have ALL timeouts they are not allowed to do it.

5.11.5b is your play. Team A is given a timeout at the end of regulation. They have a timeout just as the team at beginning of game had several. They are simply not allowed to use it until ball becomes live in OT. A technical is not an option unless they refuse to play or do something unsportsmanlike.

You call a T when a team is out of timeouts. In both of these situations 5.11.5 A and B the team is not OUT of timeouts. They are not just not allowed to use the one or ones they have.

Successive ???
 

Similar to successive timeouts with 0:00 on the clock at the end of the game?

5-11-7: Successive time-outs, as in 4-43-2, shall not be granted after the
expiration of playing time for the fourth quarter or any extra period. In all other
instances, they shall be administered in the order in which they were requested.

Situation seems problematic and more theoretical than realistic as coach does not have to call a timeout. If they have more to say and are willing to risk a technical they can just keep talking to their kids. Then have the tech called, while it is being administered have kids check in and continue to meet with them through the shots.

Regardless they can't call the timeout or have the timeout awarded until after play resumes.

So would you be issuing a direct T on the coach?

How much time are you giving him? It's not the "full minute" because it's not the start of either half. You can't really use the resumption of play procedure, because it's not a throw-in or FT (as used between quarters).

The scenario being discussed was after the one minute between the end of regulation and the start of the overtime. Teams line up for the jump and coach of team A requests timeout, before the ball becomes live. We all know that the additional time out can't be used until the ball becomes live. Big Cat I like your thoughts on the matter. If I'm understanding you correctly, the additional time out for the OT period creates a situation where team A is not out of timeouts, but is prevented from utilizing the timeout by rule. So when the coach requests a timeout, you just deny it since the ball has not become live in the OT and toss the ball to begin the OT.

Yes.

Thanks to all for your input.

IF the T is called before the OT starts, is it part of the 4th Q or part of OT? IOW, if a FT is made, is the game over without OT?

Since we were already going to OT, any FTs will be part of the OT.

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.

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….

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

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.

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.

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."

No. I said I would be tempted to say it.

All I want to know is why the coach wanted to give the other team two points.

Also My Exact Words ...
 

Agree.