timeout

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

So in the hopeless unlikely scenario that Billy Mac raised, if a team is out of time outs at the end of the game that is going to OT, but requests one (thinking he has a new one for OT) before OT starts, does the R, (A) grant a TO and give a T for not having any, or (B) tell the coach that he can't be granted the additional TO until after the OT starts?

(And for the life of me I can't figure out why a realistic reason a coach would do that anyway . . .maybe the star is still having a cut wrapped up?)

B, then A if the coach still wants it. (This is kind of the exception to the "grant any request that meets the requirements" guideline.)

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

B, then A if the coach still wants it. (This is kind of the exception to the "grant any request that meets the requirements" guideline.)

Agree.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

B, then A if the coach still wants it. (This is kind of the exception to the "grant any request that meets the requirements" guideline.)

I agree but I would also, and some may disagree with this, tell the coach that if he still wants to call a TO, then he would receive a T.

[Big_Blue_Wannabe]

Ok, how about this sitch:

Tie game. 2.3 seconds left. Team A inbounding bedding to go the length of the floor to score. Team B steals the inbounds pass just outside the 3 point line and turns to shoot. B1 is fouled in the act of shooting a three point shot as time expires. Team A still has 3 time outs.

Is there any reason Team A couldn’t call a timeout before the first free throw is attempted, and then if that is missed, call another one before the second FT, and if that misses, take another timeout before the final FT.

I had that in a game yesterday, just without the timeouts mixed in. Player misses the first two before making the third to win the game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Big_Blue_Wannabe

Is there any reason Team A couldn’t call a timeout before the first free throw is attempted, and then if that is missed, call another one before the second FT, and if that misses, take another timeout before the final FT.

So -- you're asking whether a successive timeout may (not) be granted depends on whether the ball becomes live or the clock starts?

The definition of successive timeout is clear.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

So -- you're asking whether a successive timeout may (not) be granted depends on whether the ball becomes live or the clock starts?

The definition of successive timeout is clear.

"STO is one which is granted to either team before the clock has started following the previous time-out." So, no, could not request them between FT's. Ball was live but clock did not start.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

"STO is one which is granted to either team before the clock has started following the previous time-out." So, no, could not request them between FT's. Ball was live but clock did not start.

Either team.

Just to be clear: In a tied game, with both teams having multiple timeouts still available, with Team A in the double bonus, A1 is fouled so close to the end of the fourth period that the buzzer subsequently sounds and the clock shows 0:00:00.

Officials meet and decide that while the foul occurred barely before the buzzer, nobody has any definite knowledge regarding how much time was on the clock when the foul occurred. As the officials are moving into position to allow A1 free throws with the lane cleared, Team A requests and is granted a sixty second time out.

After the timeout, A1 misses the first of two free throws. Team B now requests a sixty second timeout.

The officials deny Team B's timeout request because the rule states that successive timeouts may not be granted to either team.

Right?

[ODog]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Either team.

... The officials deny Team B's timeout request because the rule states that successive timeouts may not be granted to either team.

Right?

Right. Only after time has expired (which in this case, it has) but yes, right.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Either team.

Just to be clear: In a tied game, with both teams having multiple timeouts still available, with Team A in the double bonus, A1 is fouled so close to the end of the fourth period that the buzzer subsequently sounds and the clock shows 0:00:00.

Officials meet and decide that while the foul occurred barely before the buzzer, nobody has any definite knowledge regarding how much time was on the clock when the foul occurred. As the officials are moving into position to allow A1 free throws with the lane cleared, Team A requests and is granted a sixty second time out.

After the timeout, A1 misses the first of two free throws. Team B now requests a sixty second timeout.

The officials deny Team B's timeout request because the rule states that successive timeouts may not be granted to either team.

Right?

I vote incorrect. I feel that successive TO's, based on the wording, refers to each team.