|
|
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006, 03:43pm
|
|||
|
|||
Does "shall" mean the same as "must"?
I'm not sure I remember this being discussed recently, although I'm sure it has at some point. This was a play that a friend of mine experienced.
Situation: Team B is out of timeouts. Team A scores, and is now up by 2, with the clock under 5 seconds. B1 grabs the ball, and signals a TO request to the nearest official. The official ignores the request, and the clock runs out to end the game before B1 even steps OOB for the throw-in. Team A's coach (the team that won), wanted to know why the official did not grant the request, thereby giving team B the T, with team A getting 2 shots and possesion, and effectively icing the game. The coach's argument was if B1 had taken the ball out after his request was ignored, and a desparation shot had gone in, team A would've lost due to the official not calling the TO, and the resulting T. So the question is: the rule states the official "shall" grant the timeout request; is that the same as the official "must" grant the request? Does the coach have a point? Or does the official have some judgement in whether the (excess) TO is granted, even if the request is "legitimate" in all other repects? In this sitch, the player wasn't jumping up and down yelling for the TO; he just looked at the official, gave a quick signal with his hands, saw he was being ignored, looked at his coach (who was probably yelling for him to hurry and inbound the damn ball!), as the clock ran out. Thoughts?
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.) 
|
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006, 03:54pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Good Question
My opinion is with a game that close, you should know the time out situations. I would let the coach know after the last granted timeout that he has none left. In the event one of his players call timeout, I would grant it and give a technical foul for excessive timeouts.
Section 12 - TIME-OUTS — EXCESSIVE, SUCCESSIVE ART. 2 . . . Time-outs in excess of the allotted number may be requested and shall be granted during regulation playing time or any extra period at the expense of a technical foul for each. So, I guess to answer your question, "shall" means that they will be granted at the expense of a technical foul.
__________________
Score the Basket!!!! 
|
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006, 04:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
If the official knew (which he should have) B was out of TOs then the official should have called a technical on the player. If he was not aware B was out of TO then he would have found out when reporting the TO. Either way it should have resulted in a technical. Even though B is out of TO, both teams get to use the full time out period.
|
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006, 04:04pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Does
Originally posted by M&M Guy
So the question is: the rule states the official "shall" grant the timeout request; is that the same as the official "must" grant the request? Yes Does the coach have a point? Yes Or does the official have some judgement in whether the (excess) TO is granted, even if the request is "legitimate" in all other repects? No. The rule is absolute. There may even be a reason that the player or coach wants a time out, fully knowing it will cost two shots and the ball. For example, what if the losing team, with no time outs, scores with 5 seconds to go. All the winning team has to do is not inbound the ball and the clock will run out. But if the losing team calls time out immediately after making the basket-- and it is granted promptly -- then lots can happen during the stopped clock. The foul shots could be missed. The inbounds pass could be stolen. The team that is behind could make a winning basket before time is out. All of this is within the rules and you may not substitute your judgment for the clear meaning of the rule. Shall means must. Always. [Edited by baystateref on Jan 18th, 2006 at 04:08 PM]
|
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006, 04:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think the word "shall" is to give the officials wiggle room for their judgment. I think that is why they do not use the words "must" because the word "must" suggests that you have no choice. Well most of the decision we make are about judgment and choice to make a certain call. That is just how I see it.
I also would have granted the timeout. If you do not grant an obvious request for a timeout, someone can always say you had some nefarious reason for not doing so. Not calling a timeout in this situation will call into question other things you might have done throughout the game. Also if the game is taped and you ignore the request, that just adds to the validity of the argument that you did not give a timeout for some arterial motive. It is the job of the teams to know their timeout status and if they call a timeout they do not have, they will suffer the consequences. It is not like they are going to get the ball back. They are going to lose the ball or not get the ball after FTs and a throw-in. Give them the timeout and let the chips fall where they may after that. Now this is my opinion, I am sure others will disagree. I just think you will have a better case to cover yourself if this issue is reported. At least granting the timeout you can always say you did what the rule clearly says to do. Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
|
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006, 04:31pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Just an FYI - the official did know the team was out of timeouts, and was trying to make sure it was obvious the player was requesting the TO. The player did not verbalize the request, but just signaled with a two-handed "t". No one else was making a request.
The official's comment was he wanted everyone to be aware the player was requesting the TO, so there would be no misunderstanding of why the T would be called. He also pointed out the language in the book, which seems to give us a little latitude. If it's always automatic, why not use the word "must" in the rule?
__________________
M&M's - The Official Candy of the Department of Redundancy Department. (Used with permission.)
|
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006, 04:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Like Rut said, it gives us some lattitude. I have seen some officials stop play, make sure the coach wants the timeout, just incase the coach didnt realize it was his last and either grant it with a "t" or put the ball back in play.
__________________
Score the Basket!!!!
|
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006, 04:39pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006, 04:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
More like, no overtime tonight, I am going home!
__________________
Score the Basket!!!!
|
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006, 04:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006, 04:59pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Virtually every rule in the book is stated as "shall." Every single one says shall, not "MUST." The rule book has some "may" clauses: (uniform rules such as American flag, commemorative patch; may extend arms/elbows to hold ball under the chin (9-13-2); timer's mistakes (5-10-1); free throw administration delay (8-1-2) It is your job to know that shall means MUST. Every time. It is not optional. [Edited by baystateref on Jan 18th, 2006 at 05:08 PM]
|
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006, 06:30pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Does
Quote:
2) Yes. 3) No. Rule 4-12-2 sez that you gotta grant the time-out. Case book play 10.1.7 now tells you what the call is. No brainer.
|
|
Wed Jan 18, 2006, 07:21pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
shall | modal verb
2 expressing a strong assertion or intention : they shall succeed | you shall not frighten me out of this. 3 expressing an instruction or command : you shall not steal (Definitions 1 and 4 are not relevant for this discussion.) In the rulebook, I've always taken "shall" to be in the definition 3 sense---a command to the official to do something.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
