Negative!

As unlikely as it might seem, OS is right this time.

The timeout positions have NOTHING to do with who calls/reports the timeout.

If the throwin will be administered on your line, you go to the spot whether you called the timeout or not (after reporting if you do call the timeout).

If the throwin will be administered on your partner's line, you go to the division line whether you called the timeout or not (after reporting if you do call the timeout).

Think of it as if a defensive violation occurs at the location of the ball at the time of the timeout. Whoever would have administered the throwin for the violation will also administer the timeout throwin and will also go to the spot. Who calls the timeout is NOT a factor.

Examples:

In all cases, whoever calls it reports it before going to their spot.

1. Ball in the backcourt when the timeout is called...trail administering
   • Trail will go to the spot.
   • Lead will go to the division line.
2. Ball in frontcourt such that the throwin will be on the endline or on the lead's sideline
   • Lead will go to the spot
   • Trail will go to the division line
3. Ball in frontcourt such that the throwin will be on the trail's sideline
   • Trail will go to the spot
   • Lead will go to the division line
4. Throwin due for team A due to a violation or foul...
   • Whoever was to adminster that throwin (after switching) will go to the spot
   • The other official will go to the division line
5. FT's to be taken after the timeout
   • New lead goes to the FT line
   • New trail goes to the division line

Cameron,
Is this in the official's manual? I just wonder if it's a regional thing; because I've always done it based on who made the call.

Guess this is more evidence of the stopped clock theory.

I don't have the current manual. However, that is the way it used to be.

A lot of people still got it all messed up...doing it the way you described. Since it's one of those things that doesn't make much difference, I just went to what ever spot my partner didn't go to if they were already in a spot.

Please point me to where I may find in the mechanics manual the above procedure for time-outs.

I agree with Camron that this is how it's supposed to be done, here. To do otherwise would sometimes force a switch, and there's not supposed to be a switch on a TO.

YMMV.

Not the first time I've been wrong. Won't be the last.

I ... w i l l .... resist .... :D
Actually, I don't post all that much for reasons similar to yours, but I do find most of the nit picking quite humorous, and often instructional, when it helps clarify what was meant.

Not supposed to ?
I'll force a switch if I feel like I've been in one position for too long.
Other times, I'll force a switch if I think my partner has been in one position [missing necessary contact fouls] for too long.

You are wise beyond your years.....

Sometimes dogma needs to be replaced with common sense.

While I agree, that adds information not in the OP. So, assuming there's no other (game management) reason to switch, don't switch on the TO.

It's not in the manual. Whoever administers the time-out, calls the timeout, point to the throw-in spot and goes to the division line while the other official continues to observe the floor while retrieving the ball and going to the spot of the throw in. I think back in the day when you were able to hand off a time-out you can do it the way Cameron describes. It just doesn't make much sense to go from the endline to report the timeout, then let the coach know if it's his last timeout (as written in the procedure) then go back to the throw-in spot, while your partner is standing in the trail position watching you report then watch you go back and retrieve the ball and go to your old spot so he can take a few steps and take his spot at the division line. I've just always done it this way in 2-man.

I totally agree. Often at times, especially during the end of the game, our crew will come together during the timeout to briefly discuss the current sitation, at that time we may and have switched for those same reasons.

Seems to be one of those "when in Rome" deals.

I wouldn't be afraid of doing it in Colorado. :)