Successive time outs

[reffish]

Did you know that successive timeouts apply to both teams? I thought it only applied to one team calling successive timeouts. Kinda neat what you learn when you read the Rules Book.....

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by reffish

Did you know that successive timeouts apply to both teams? I thought it only applied to one team calling successive timeouts. Kinda neat what you learn when you read the Rules Book.....

Let's get this game going!

[BillyMac]

A successive time-out is one which is granted to either team before the clock has started following the previous time-out. Successive time-outs shall not be granted after the expiration of playing time for the fourth quarter or any extra period.

5.11.7 SITUATION A: Airborne shooter A1 is fouled by B1 with the try in flight.
The horn then sounds ending the fourth quarter playing time. The ball continues
its flight and goes through the basket to tie the score. Before A1 attempts the free
throw as part of the fourth quarter, Team B captain requests and is granted a 60-
second time-out. Team A or B captain then requests a 30-second time-out during
the same dead-ball period. RULING: The second request is denied. At the end of
playing time for the fourth quarter or any overtime period, successive time-outs
shall not be granted. This means a time-out cannot be granted either team until
the clock has run in the extra period – assuming the free throw is missed.
Successive time-outs may be granted in all situations except after time has
expired in the fourth quarter or any extra period.

5.11.7 SITUATION B: Following the expiration of time for the first extra period,
the coach of Team B is charged with a technical foul. Team B requests a time-out
before the free throws are administered to start the second extra period. The
time-out request is granted. Thereafter, the official administers the first free throw
to A1. Following the attempt: (a) Team B; or (b) Team A, then requests a time-out.
RULING: The request cannot be granted in either (a) or (b), as it would be consid -
ered a successive time-out. The fact that the ball did become live between the two
requests has no bearing on the ruling. Another time-out request by either team
cannot be honored until after the clock has started in the second extra period.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by reffish

Did you know that successive timeouts apply to both teams? I thought it only applied to one team calling successive timeouts. Kinda neat what you learn when you read the Rules Book.....

That is probably a case book situation.

Peace

[LeeBallanfant]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A successive time-out is one which is granted to either team before the clock has started following the previous time-out. Successive time-outs shall not be granted after the expiration of playing time for the fourth quarter or any extra period.

5.11.7 SITUATION A: Airborne shooter A1 is fouled by B1 with the try in flight.
The horn then sounds ending the fourth quarter playing time. The ball continues
its flight and goes through the basket to tie the score. Before A1 attempts the free
throw as part of the fourth quarter, Team B captain requests and is granted a 60-
second time-out. Team A or B captain then requests a 30-second time-out during
the same dead-ball period. RULING: The second request is denied. At the end of
playing time for the fourth quarter or any overtime period, successive time-outs
shall not be granted. This means a time-out cannot be granted either team until
the clock has run in the extra period – assuming the free throw is missed.
Successive time-outs may be granted in all situations except after time has
expired in the fourth quarter or any extra period.

5.11.7 SITUATION B: Following the expiration of time for the first extra period,
the coach of Team B is charged with a technical foul. Team B requests a time-out
before the free throws are administered to start the second extra period. The
time-out request is granted. Thereafter, the official administers the first free throw
to A1. Following the attempt: (a) Team B; or (b) Team A, then requests a time-out.
RULING: The request cannot be granted in either (a) or (b), as it would be consid -
ered a successive time-out. The fact that the ball did become live between the two
requests has no bearing on the ruling. Another time-out request by either team
cannot be honored until after the clock has started in the second extra period.

So in Situation A, Team B calls time out and it is granted, Team A (not realizing it has no time outs left) requests a time out. If I read the rule correctly, requesting the TO is a TF, but TO is not awarded because it is successive.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by LeeBallanfant

Team A (not realizing it has no time outs left) requests a time out ... requesting the TO is a TF ...

Thanks to LeeBallanfant. I just noticed that a technical foul is not charged for being granted an excess timeout, but rather a technical foul is charged for requesting an excess timeout.

Originally Posted by reffish

Kinda neat what you learn when you read the Rules Book.

A team shall not: Request an excess time-out.

This wording is quite odd.

Team A has used all their alloted timeouts. Ball handler A1 loses the handle on the ball and has an interrupted dribble when Coach A requests an excess timeout. Official, noting that a Team A player is not in control (holding or dribbling live ball), knows that he cannot grant Team A a timeout in that situation and doesn't immediately grant the timeout, but instead, sounds his whistle and charges Team A with a technical foul for "request(ing) an excess timeout". Team A is never granted their requested timeout.

Is the official correct?

Of course not, but something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

The official may never find out that Team A requested an excess timeout:

The scorer shall: Signal the nearer official each time a team is granted a time-out in excess of the allotted number.

But, the official already has the knowledge:

The scorer shall: Record the time-out information charged to each team and notify a team and its coach, through an official, whenever that team is granted its final allotted charged time-out.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Why would an official grant a timeout that a team does not have? TF and move on seems pretty obvious, right? Or am I missing something here?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

Why would an official grant a timeout that a team does not have?

With few exceptions (successive timeouts with zeros on the clock) officials always grant timeouts when legally requested (team's player holding, or dribbling, or dead ball), even if the team has already used all their alloted timeouts. Even when, due to a mistake involving the scorekeeper and officials, the coach had not been informed that he had used all his alloted timeouts. That's why there is an excess timeout technical foul the rulebook. Also, since it's "penalized when discovered", a technical foul can be charged several minutes, and several live balls and dead balls, after the excess timeout is granted (possibly due to a corrected scorebook mistake, or a communication problem between the scorekeeper and the officials).

Chris Webber's Infamous Timeout: https://youtu.be/-QPB9NBUG2g

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Team A has used all their alloted timeouts. Ball handler A1 loses the handle on the ball and has an interrupted dribble when Coach A requests an excess timeout. Official, noting that a Team A player is not in control (holding or dribbling live ball), knows that he cannot grant Team A a timeout in that situation and doesn't immediately grant the timeout, but instead, sounds his whistle and charges Team A with a technical foul for "request(ing) an excess timeout". Team A is never granted their requested timeout.

Is the official correct?

Of course not, and nothing is rotten. Since A did not meet the conditions for being granted a TO (PC or at disposal), Coach A did not really "request" a TO in the meaning of the rule.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Of course not ...

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Of course not ....

Agree. I would still like to see:

A team shall not: Request and be granted an excess time-out.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

Why would an official grant a timeout that a team does not have? TF and move on seems pretty obvious, right? Or am I missing something here?

Officials are not scorekeepers. We grant them when they ask (and there is the video that shows they requested a timeout). There is no rules support to not grant a timeout when requested. They should know their situation better than we should.

Peace

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Agree. I would still like to see:

A team shall not: Request and be granted an excess time-out.

I think you have a solution in search of a problem. If you add that language, you are going to create the impression in some that the official can decline to grant and thereby not give the TF. Has anyone ever heard of the current language causing an issue in the real world? Anyone? Ever?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

If you add that language, you are going to create the impression in some that the official can decline to grant and thereby not give the TF.

Good point. It just seemed like a quick, simple fix to a solution in search of a problem. I was just trying to be proactive. I didn't realize there would be any unintended consequences.

And we do have officials, some who have lurked on this Forum, who believe that they can ignore a request for a timeout from a coach if the official knows it would be an excess timeout leading to a technical foul.

[UNIgiantslayers]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Officials are not scorekeepers. We grant them when they ask (and there is the video that shows they requested a timeout). There is no rules support to not grant a timeout when requested. They should know their situation better than we should.

Peace

Two things here.

First, when a team is out of timeouts, the scorekeeper let's me know and I make the coach aware of it.

Second, I guess I was thinking that when whoever said "grant the timeout when there is none remaining," I guess I thought they meant give them that 30 or 60 seconds that constitute a timeout. I didn't realize they meant stop play, realize they have none, and T immediately. I guess that was my mistake. Apologies.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by UNIgiantslayers

I didn't realize they meant stop play, realize they have none, and T immediately.

They still get their timeout. I'd give him sixty if he requests it because the coach is already pissed at somebody (himself, an assistant, a scorekeeper, or a player) and he'll probably need the full sixty seconds to calm down. Thirty seconds (unless they request it) would be like pouring gasoline on a fire.