NEW Case Book ruling!!!
 

There is an unannounced change in one of the Case Book rulings. I do not agree with the new ruling, but here is the change that the NFHS made:

2005-2006 Version:
5.12.4 SITUATION B: Regulation play ends with a tied score. Even though Team A has used all its allowed time-outs, A1 requests a time-out before the overtime period begins. RULING: The time-out is granted and results in a technical foul. The additional 60-second time-out provided for an overtime period cannot be used until the overtime has actually started with the ball becoming live. This overtime begins with the technical-foul free throws by Team B, followed by a division-line throw-in opposite the table. (10-1-7)

2006-2007 Version:
*5.12.4 SITUATION B: Regulation play ends with a tied score. Team A has used all of its allotted time-outs. Team A requests a time-out before the overtime period begins. RULING: The time-out should not be granted. 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).

Is there a web link available for this?

Thx.

As I said this is an UNANNOUNCED change, so you aren't going to find anything on the web about it. This new ruling just appeared in this season's printed Case Book.

Huh??
 

Wait a minute. You are upset with a change that was made without fanfare and you disagree with the "change." When I raised the very same issue with a ruling that should be reflected in the casebook (and you cannot find anywhere in current NF literature) you went off about how dumb it was to ignore what that NF's rulings. Now you have a case play that is clearly illustrated and you know they are wrong?

My position has always been that the NF makes a lot of mistakes and every year they have to reference a correction in other sports because someone did not read what was actually in the book. In football this year there were about 3 plays that were totally wrong in the NF Casebook and had to be retracted to reflect the actual rules. Nevada, you on the other hand have done nothing but tell people how correct the NF is and now you are trying to say "you" know what is right. Your position sounds hypocritical if you ask me.

Peace

Tony,
Look again. The old case play said that they could have the time-out. It is the NEW case play which says that they cannot!

Ok, it shouldn't be granted. But what if you do grant it? What if you have a brain cramp, blow the whistle, announce "Time-out, blue", report it to the table, and then your partner comes over and tells you that you "shouldn't" grant the time-out?

Do you still follow the old case, since you've granted the time-out? Or do you go and tell everyone that there is no time-out?

I honestly have no idea. Furthermore, I don't even know if this would apply to that situation:
5.8.3 SITUATION E: The official erroneously grants Team B a time-out in a situation when Team B cannot have one. What happens now? RULING: Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was granted. The time-out once granted cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B. All privileges and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams.

At least they put the asterisk by the case play to note that it was new / changed.

I agree that the "old" case play was better -- from a game management standpoint, though, I would explain to the coach that s/he didn't get the extra TO until the OT started and ask if they still wanted the TO.

5-12-2
 

(italics mine)

One could argue that these words mean that regulation playing time has expired, and that the New period hasn't started.

Plus 5-12-4 says that a time out shall not granted using the new time out until after the overtime period starts.

If you interpret 5-12-2 the way it appears, then the Case Book ruling seems to make sense.

Yeah, I thought of that rationale, but does that mean that a team cannot take a sixth time-out during halftime or the intermission between quarters because that is not DURING REGULATION PLAYING TIME?

How about during a dead ball period? One could interpret that as not DURING playing time!


We already have a rule which states that successive time-outs cannot be granted following the expiration of time in the fourth quarter is it really a big deal if a team takes one? Ironically, we now have the situation in which the team may take one of its five alloted time-outs prior to the extra period, but cannot be charged with a sixth one if they had already used their five? What is the rationale behind that?

Don't me confusing me with all these #$&#@#$ COLORS!! :p

And those "b"s that look like "m"s. :D

If a coach needs a timeout between the end of regulation and the jump ball administration, he needs to find a new line of work. I can't understand a coach who has six practices a week and an untold number of games under his belt in the season and in his career that can't put five players on the court for a jump ball without calling a timeout.

Neber sayed I kould tipe.

What if his player got injured and had to be attended to on the floor during the buzzer beater attempt? He would need to use a TO to keep this kid in the game and allow him to start the extra period. There are good reasons that this might come up.