The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   timeout (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/103416-timeout.html)

ekolnaski Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:17pm

timeout
 
can a coach call a timeout at the end of a tied game but a foul has been called. this coach called a timeout just before the free throws were going to be shot? is that legal

Rich Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:18pm

Yes.

Consecutive timeouts after time expires in regulation or at the end of an extra period are not allowed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

packersowner Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1015529)
Yes.

Consecutive timeouts after time expires in regulation or at the end of an extra period are not allowed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

5-11-7

This has caused confusion for a partner one time. A timeout can be called after regulation, but not successive which you have to go to 4-43-2 for the definition of. He took this to mean successive relative to the "time out break" between quarters or in that case between the 4Q and OT.

Rich Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:44pm

timeout
 
Successive, right.

We had a crew locally have a player foul out on such a foul a few weeks ago. The defense was going to use the 15 seconds, enter the sub,and then call a 60 second timeout. Before he could do any of these, the crew allowed the team to shoot the winning free throw. Then the second one.

The assigner, ahem, got an email the next morning.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

justacoach Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekolnaski (Post 1015528)
can a coach call a timeout at the end of a tied game but a foul has been called. this coach called a timeout just before the free throws were going to be shot? is that legal

Welcome to the forum, Mr. Semantics checking in!

A coach may REQUEST a time out. It is up to the official, to decide to grant it.
In your case, legit request, should be granted.

Factors to consider.....
If his played is shooting, request may be granted even if shooter has ball but before shot is released.
If opponent is shooting, request must be made before the ball is 'at the disposal of shooter. See Rules Book for definition of 'at the disposal'

NB:This is for NFHS rules, other levels may differ.

BigT Thu Jan 25, 2018 01:06pm

You also can not start OT with a Timeout.

bucky Thu Jan 25, 2018 03:39pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 1015541)
You also can not start OT with a Timeout.

Also cannot start the game with a timeout. Or more specifically, no timeout is granted at the start of the game and OT until the ball is live.

crosscountry55 Thu Jan 25, 2018 03:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1015529)
Yes.

Consecutive timeouts after time expires in regulation or at the end of an extra period are not allowed.

I have to imagine that this rule is in place to prevent the endless icing of the free-throw shooter. That means in some game, long long ago, a coach must have called three or four timeouts and dragged the end of the game out by five agonizing minutes. Chances are this rule was added not long after.

Camron Rust Thu Jan 25, 2018 04:06pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigT (Post 1015541)
You also can not start OT with a Timeout.

Note quite correct. A team can't use the additional timeout granted for OT until the OT has started. But, there is nothing preventing them from using a timeout that was left over from regulation.

bucky Thu Jan 25, 2018 08:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 1015564)
Note quite correct. A team can't use the additional timeout granted for OT until the OT has started. But, there is nothing preventing them from using a timeout that was left over from regulation.

Guess I am confused here. No TO can be used in OT until the ball has become live. Can't just start OT with a TO carried over from the 4th quarter.

BillyMac Thu Jan 25, 2018 08:47pm

Overtime ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1015576)
Guess I am confused here. No TO can be used in OT until the ball has become live. Can't just start OT with a TO carried over from the 4th quarter.

That's what I thought, but I'm open to other interpretations.

ODog Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:02pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1015576)
Can't just start OT with a TO carried over from the 4th quarter.

Yes you can. As mentioned, it just can't be the additional timeout you are allotted for overtime.

Rich Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1015576)
Guess I am confused here. No TO can be used in OT until the ball has become live. Can't just start OT with a TO carried over from the 4th quarter.



How about a rule or case citation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

bucky Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1015585)
How about a rule or case citation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

NFHS Rule 5 Section 11 Article 1 and 5.

Article 1 indicates that "Unused time-outs accumulate and may be used any time". (BigT, Camron, Odog all correct, I was incorrect - thanks)

Article 5 indicates that "A time-out shall not be granted until after the ball has become live to start the game. The additional 60-second time-out provided for each extra period(s) shall not be granted until after the ball has become live to start the extra period(s).

BillyMac Fri Jan 26, 2018 07:06am

Good Citation ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1015587)
Article 5 indicates that "A time-out shall not be granted until after the ball has become live to start the game. The additional 60-second time-out provided for each extra period(s) shall not be granted until after the ball has become live to start the extra period(s).

So a team can use a carryover (from the fourth period) timeout (but not successive) between the end of regulation and the beginning of the overtime (jump ball)? Said team can probably also request and be granted a timeout (but not successive) in this situation in excess of the timeout limit with the penalty of a technical foul? Right?

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:36am

Quote:

Originally Posted by justacoach (Post 1015536)
Welcome to the forum, Mr. Semantics checking in!

A coach may REQUEST a time out. It is up to the official, to decide to grant it.
In your case, legit request, should be granted.

Factors to consider.....
If his played is shooting, request may be granted even if shooter has ball but before shot is released.
If opponent is shooting, request must be made before the ball is 'at the disposal of shooter. See Rules Book for definition of 'at the disposal'

NB:This is for NFHS rules, other levels may differ.



If the situation is such that a Team is allowed to request a TO, then the Game Official must grant the request.

MTD, Sr.

so cal lurker Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr. (Post 1015638)
If the situation is such that a Team is allowed to request a TO, then the Game Official must grant the request.

MTD, Sr.

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?)

bob jenkins Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by so cal lurker (Post 1015640)
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 Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1015645)
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.

Big_Blue_Wannabe Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:39pm

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

bucky Fri Jan 26, 2018 01:37pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1015645)
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.

bob jenkins Fri Jan 26, 2018 01:42pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Blue_Wannabe (Post 1015658)
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 Fri Jan 26, 2018 01:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins (Post 1015668)
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 Sat Jan 27, 2018 11:35am

Either Team ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1015669)
"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 Sat Jan 27, 2018 01:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1015734)
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 Sat Jan 27, 2018 08:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1015734)
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 Sat Jan 27, 2018 09:36pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1015743)
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 Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:23pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1015745)
You would be wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

How about a rule or case citation? lol

Rich Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1015746)
How about a rule or case citation? lol

How about looking it up yourself?

Look at 5.11.7, both situations.

BillyMac Sun Jan 28, 2018 04:25am

Let's Go To The Videotape ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 101574)
Look at 5.11.7, both situations.

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.

Rich Sun Jan 28, 2018 06:38am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1015753)
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.



Make him actually crack a book. I could've cut and pasted too, but I chose not to.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

BillyMac Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:02am

Give A Man A Fish And He'll Eat For A Day ...
 
Teach him how to fish, and he will sit in a boat and drink beer all day. (George Carlin)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1015754)
Make him actually crack a book. I could've cut and pasted too, but I chose not to.

Any time I copy, and paste, rule, or casebook, citations (from the NFHS 2011-12 rulebook, and casebook, on my hard drive, the newest available to me) it's mostly for me, and everybody else on the Forum, not necessarily for the benefit of a single Forum member.

However, I do lean toward the information posted in threads and posts on the Forum to be a twenty-first century reference source, the same as the information printed on dead trees was back in the twentieth century. I equate coming to the Forum for information to be almost the same as cracking open a book, especially as more and more are asking Siri, and Alexa for information.

"Alexa. Are successive timeouts legal in a basketball game?"

Gone forever are the times down at the local gin joint when the debate of the night would be who shared one the three parts of the triple crown with Carl Yastrzemski in 1967. No need to go to the library, or even own a computer, just find the answer on a smart phone, and you don't even have to drop a dime in the phone (Google it young'uns). A search engine is almost like the table of contents, or the index, in a reference book.

bucky Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1015748)
How about looking it up yourself?

You could have done the same. Check your post #13. I copied/pasted from you.

You were very helpful then and even more helpful now.

bucky Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1015745)
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 Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:36am

You Can Look It Up (Casey Stengel) ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1015758)
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 Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:54am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1015758)
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...

WhistlesAndStripes Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1015760)
Feelings. Nothing more than feelings...

The facts don’t care about your feelings.

bucky Sun Jan 28, 2018 02:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1015759)
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.

Those gals scare me.:eek:

BillyMac Sun Jan 28, 2018 02:37pm

Alexa, Are You Single ???
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bucky (Post 1015769)
Those gals scare me.

I was thinking about asking one of them out on a date.

Altor Sun Jan 28, 2018 03:44pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1015771)
I was thinking about asking one of them out on a date.

I haven't tried with Alexa, but Siri usually responds with something along the lines of "I think we should just be friends." Maybe you can get out of the friend zone.

BillyMac Sun Jan 28, 2018 03:51pm

Or, It's Not You, It's Me ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Altor (Post 1015779)
"I think we should just be friends."

If I only had a dollar for every time that I heard that?

I blame it all on that old Carole King / James Taylor song.

BillyMac Mon Jan 29, 2018 06:18pm

"Hammerin' Harmon" ...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1015756)
Gone forever are the times down at the local gin joint when the debate of the night would be who shared one the three parts of the triple crown with Carl Yastrzemski in 1967.

Harmon Killebrew. He and Yaz both had forty-four home runs to lead the American League in 1967.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1