The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Basketball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 26, 2018, 01:42pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Blue_Wannabe View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 26, 2018, 01:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob jenkins View Post
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.
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 27, 2018, 11:35am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 23,378
Either Team ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
"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?
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sat Jan 27, 2018 at 12:08pm.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 27, 2018, 01:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 529
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 27, 2018, 08:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyMac View Post
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.
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 27, 2018, 09:36pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 27, 2018, 10:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
You would be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
How about a rule or case citation? lol
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 27, 2018, 10:26pm
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
How about a rule or case citation? lol
How about looking it up yourself?

Look at 5.11.7, both situations.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 28, 2018, 11:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich View Post
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.
__________________
If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 28, 2018, 11:36am
Esteemed Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 23,378
You Can Look It Up (Casey Stengel) ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
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.
__________________
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

“I was in prison and you came to visit me.” (Matthew 25:36)

Last edited by BillyMac; Sun Jan 28, 2018 at 11:42am.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 28, 2018, 11:54am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky View Post
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...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Timeout for a CE Sharpshooternes Basketball 1 Sat Oct 12, 2013 07:34am
Timeout soundedlikeastrike Basketball 18 Fri Oct 28, 2011 11:52am
timeout timeout Basketball 3 Thu Feb 17, 2011 09:25am
Timeout??? Bchill24 Basketball 6 Tue Dec 25, 2001 12:34am
Timeout Rookie Basketball 17 Wed Dec 12, 2001 04:44am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1