timeout

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bucky

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

You would be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Rich

You would be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

How about a rule or case citation? lol

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bucky

How about a rule or case citation? lol

How about looking it up yourself?

Look at 5.11.7, both situations.

[bucky]

Originally Posted by Rich

You would be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I disagree in that I would be "wrong". I would honor the case play ruling but I also feel that the case and rule conflict. Much the like the recent BC discussions where officials feel the same.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bucky

I disagree in that I would be "wrong". I would honor the case play ruling but I also feel that the case and rule conflict.

No conflict, based on the meaning of the word "either" (being the one or the other of two). Just ask either Siri, or Alexa. It's not anything like the recent backcourt discussions. Not even close.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bucky

I disagree in that I would be "wrong". I would honor the case play ruling but I also feel that the case and rule conflict. Much the like the recent BC discussions where officials feel the same.

Feelings. Nothing more than feelings...