This is something we talked about in a meeting the other day.
Team A request, and is granted, a time out with 1 minute remaining in overtime. As the time out ends the coach from team A requests another time out. Do you give them the time out?

I know the correct answer, do you?

Sure.

Sure, I know and sure, you grant the TO request.

The only time successive TOs aren't granted is after the expiration of playing time in the 4th quarter or extra period.

Uh, it is overtime.

Yes, and playing time hasn't expired.

What's your point?

Uh, he means overtime. Specifically, he means "The only time successive TOs aren't granted is after the expiration of playing time in the 4th quarter or [after the expiration of playing time in the] extra period."

That's what Bob told you.It's legal. It's only illegal at the end of playing time for the fourth quarter,or the end of each extra period.

NFHS rule 6-12-3. I think that you may be reading that rule wrong.

:D

You kow what? You guys are right and I have to be man enough to put it out there that I'm wrong. It will be fun at the next meeting! So, even though I'm wrong here I wasn't wrong originally.

I must say this and it is has been bothering me for quite some time. Why do we even have to play politics online? Now I'm not talking about Bob (the moderator) but if you review several posts you can see a patern of politics or a click. Now I've humbled myself to say I'm wrong and I hope those involved will step back and look at this before responding. We should be able to talk basketball without being in these little groups like we are in high school. I know those involved don't know me but I'm a good referee and I'm very passionate about doing this the right way. Can't we just help one another without all of this?

Once again, thank you Bob and I stand corrected.

tommy,

I'm not really sure which posts you're referring to, but I think your perception might be b/c you're relatively new to the forum. The folks who have been here a while sort of know each other and like each other (there are exceptions, of course) and poke fun at each other. Maybe when we apply the "poking fun" to people who aren't used to it, it seems mean-spirited, but it's really not meant that way.

And I know it's not important, but in your original statement, I think you meant to write "a clique". That's my role as Mr. Spelling Guy. Or am I Mr. Grammar Guy? :)

Except for that crusty old fart JR. He is evil to the core and would bite the head off a kitten just to see the look in the eyes of the little girl who owns it.

Quote:

And I know it's not important, but in your original statement, I think you meant to write "a clique". That's my role as Mr. Spelling Guy. Or am I Mr. Grammar Guy? :)

Or Mr. Annoying Guy?

Tommy, lighten up, OK? :)

Oooooh, I'm sorry, no. We were looking for "Mr. Typoo". Yes, Mr. Typoo. But thank you for playing. JR, tell him what he's won!

Not what you say but HOW you say it!

Perhaps you could have left out the "I know the answer, do you?" comment after your post. Or maybe it was the "Uh, it is overtime" comment.

Just like talking to a coach...often times it's not what you say, but how you say it.

The grand prize is a week in the U.P. with mick.

Second prize is two weeks in the U.P. with mick!

Or from my perspective, like a coach talking to a ref - sometimes it's not the idea you are trying to convey, but the words you use to convey it!

<font size = 1/3 color = red>Ouch !! That'll leave a marque!</font>

Or the body language! :D

:D

OK. I can see where my original post could come across wrong. That is my fault. But, I look at several posts where people have some good questions and/or comments and it turns into a group or clique jumping on them. I'm not even talking about me and my post. If someone says I should have used different words in my post I can accept that.
Someone mentioned the things you say to a coach. This is similar, if someone says something to you it can't always be followed with a smart comment. Sometimes we have to just admit we kicked it. I can do that in a game and on this forum too.

I will lighten up now. If you only knew, you would probably want me to be more serious.

Tom,
Like it was stated before.. most of the "jumping on" is just good natured ribbing.
Most take serious time to answer, and are dedicated to help give opinions/answers to any and all questions.
Sometimes the board keeps things stirred up a little to keep a lively discussion going, and to bring out all different points of view.
That's how we all learn, isn't it?

I have met you and I can testify to the board that this guy is a quality official who cares.
BTW, the reason for the successive TO prohibition is to prevent a coach from burning all of his TOs in an attempt to ice a free-thrower who was fouled while attempting a buzzer beater. In the appropriate situation, a coach might figure, what the heck, if he makes the free throw we lose the game, and I can't take the TOs home with me, so I might as well use them. So we would end up standing around for five minutes blowing a horn. Just silly.

But you didn't meet him in Nevada, didja? ;)

For detail's sake, it's 5-12-3
 

I take it you all take it that 'successive' can mean one team calling a time out after it has taken one or the opponents calling it . . . it doesn't say it doesn't mean this . . . so . . .

Re: For detail's sake, it's 5-12-3
 

Yes, 'successive' means one time out right after another no matter who's requesting it. Only 1 allowed after time expires in the 4th Q or OT.

Yes, we met at state in Reno.

My stance on this rule was changed by the members of this board and I need some help now. The rule says a timeout cannot be called after the 4th quarter or any extra period. I was told that this means during any extra period instead of after any extra period. The word after should be used with extra period to me. After the extra period is the only thing that really passes the common sense test.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not challenging the board over this. I agree, but I need something concrete to present to others. I know there is something similar in the rule book but I just can't think of it. I did send an email to NFHS and I tried to make it right down the middle so they didn't know which way I was leaning. I would appreciate it if someone can give me something from someplace in writing or a "it is the same as" reference. Thanks.

Read 5.12.3 and 5.12.4 in this year's casebook. It may or may not be more clear than the rulebook...even though some of the same wording is used.

I do not have a current case book. I know what you are thinking. Is there someplace I can get it on line?

tomegun,
E-mail me.
I'll scan and e-mail the page to you.

mick

[email protected]

These others wouldn't be the same guys who are making you sit through their rookie rules class!?!