Geesh, now I have to add that to my mental picture of the back of a police car... :eek:

So, rocky, I see what you're sayin', but does that mean my absurd scenario about a coach requesting TO in the pre-game if the other team goes on a 10 point run would be legal and allowable?

Yup, picture me sending smoke signals.....:eek:

Thunder-butt??? That's a good one...

And no, the absurd scenarios seldom, if ever, fit the discussion...unless, of course, the coach offers a substantial monetary gratuity for granting said unspoken time-out request. Or maybe if I just think they need a time-out and go ahead and give them one whether the coach wants it or not...

Ok, enough of the absurd scenarios...let's get back to JR having a forked tongue...doesn't that hurt???

No more than any other marital aid....

Bad JR.

Bad, bad JR.

OK, that's just wrong...and BadNews - I have no idea what that picture is, but the server at work won't let it through so I don't really want to know!!!

LOL! :)

That's my point. At what point do you allow a coach to request a TO for later and at one point do you draw the line?

So if the ball is rolling around on the floor, the coach can request a timeout while there's neither team or player control and as soon as one of this players gains control, I must then grant his request? :)

It's no different that what you guys are advocating on the FTs.

Yes Brad, I agree that the example is absurd, just as my example to Dan was absurd. But where do we draw the line?

And what's wrong with simply looking at the coach and expecting a nod that he still wants it?

Nothing. ;)

MUST grant his time-out request? Who said anything about MUST???

Shall = must.

I found this out a while ago.

I gave a very specific situation where I said that I (only me, not speaking for anyone else) WOULD grant the time-out...never said anything about MUST, SHALL, HAD TO, BETTER DO IT OR ELSE, etc...and changing the situation where I said I would grant the t.o. to a different situation and saying they are the same thing doesn't work either...

Ok, ok, even I'm getting confused. I need to stop by the Cleveland Public Library this weekend and sort things out.

But, Tony's and my questions have to with timing - when the coach requests the TO vs. when we actually grant it. In most cases, the request and the granting come at essentially the same time; same dead ball period, same live ball period, etc. In the situation we've had this knock-down, drag-out fight about ( ;) ), the request is made during a dead ball period, the ball becomes live, then dead, then the request is granted. In basketball rules terms, that's a long time. We were just asking if you allow that much time in between the request and granting, where do you draw the line as to "too much time" and then not allowing the request? (Like the absurd examples we've given previously.) We've only been saying the coach has informed us of their intention to call a TO at a particular time, then we can consider the nod, wink, or whatever the actual request, which we then grant. Does that make sense?

It sez when the official is allowed to recognize the request.

It sez nothing at all about when the request should be made.

If it was as clear as you make it out to be the rule would say

"The game clock ...shall be stopped when an official recognizes a request by the head coach or a player for a time out that is made after a goal until the subsequent throw-in begins".

Absolutely it makes sense...but hopefully ;) it also makes sense that "Hey, I want a time-out if the shot goes" is a whole lot different that requesting a time-out when there is a scramble for a loose ball, or when asking for it before the game even starts...