Ramifications for requesting too many timeouts

[Back In The Saddle]

I would agree that the intent of the rulesmakers was not to facilitate this kind of abuse by a coach. However, the rule is pretty clear:

(NFHS 5-12-2) 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.

Same in college:

(NCAA 5-15-1) Art. 1. Timeouts in excess of the allotted number may be requested and shall be granted at the expense of an administrative technical foul charged to the offending team for each taken and (women) loss of possession of the ball.

I don't see an option to ignore the timeout request for any reason, malicious or otherwise. Shall is a pretty iron-clad rulebook word.

The rules do allow for forfeiting the game if it becomes a travesty.

To me that gives pretty comprehensive rules coverage for this situation. It may not be ideal coverage, but it is comprehensive.

What exactly do you propose the referee rule on that isn't covered?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

I don't see an option to ignore the timeout request for any reason, malicious or otherwise. Shall is a pretty iron-clad rulebook word.

The rules do allow for forfeiting the game if it becomes a travesty.

To me that gives pretty comprehensive rules coverage for this situation. It may not be ideal coverage, but it is comprehensive.

What exactly do you propose the referee rule on that isn't covered?

I did not say the referee would just simply ignore a request. I said that they referee might feel the action is turning the game into a travesty. I do not know about you, but if that comes into play, I usually would warn a coach before I would take such an action. Just like it is illegal FT violation committed over and over to force a team to make FT might be considered making the game a travesty of the game, so could this action. You do not just forfeit a game without some instruction to a coach to before that happens. And it really becomes the case when you realize the coach is just being obstinate.

Peace

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I did not say the referee would just simply ignore a request. I said that they referee might feel the action is turning the game into a travesty. I do not know about you, but if that comes into play, I usually would warn a coach before I would take such an action. Just like it is illegal FT violation committed over and over to force a team to make FT might be considered making the game a travesty of the game, so could this action. You do not just forfeit a game without some instruction to a coach to before that happens. And it really becomes the case when you realize the coach is just being obstinate.

Peace

That I agree with.

[JRutledge]

That is all I was saying. You were reading way too much into the comments.

Peace

[Smitty]

If it's a running clock league like the one I officiate in the fall, the main reason the games use a running clock is to keep the 10 or so games played on the same court on schedule - basically to guarantee that you can start games on the hour. If you decided to call a timeout at every dead ball, you would not only irritate just about everyone involved in your game, but also the dozens of people who have games scheduled behind yours.

[Adam]

I agree with floating the trial balloon to the league before going forward with this. Personally, I don't think the extra playing time you garner would be worth the headache. At most, you'll gain what, 30 seconds of time?

Again, I don't see how this is at all "unethical" or "low road." The rules very specifically cover this, so it's not a 2-3 situation. Pragmatically, it wouldn't make sense, though.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Again, I don't see how this is at all "unethical" or "low road." The rules very specifically cover this, so it's not a 2-3 situation. Pragmatically, it wouldn't make sense, though.

Just because the rules allow or don't prohibit something doesn't necessarily mean it is ethical or acceptable.

In a running clock league like this, I'd roll the clock once this particular timeout ends...even if it didn't normally start. The clock would run during the T FTs...eating up the clock anyway....that's assuming I don't just declare it a travesty and go home.

At the same time, I'd be quite particular about not letting subs in that were "not ready".

Neither of these forms of gamesmanship should not be part of youth sports.

[bob jenkins]

What some of these leagues do (and maybe coach Bill can suggest it to the league) is allow NO subs (other than for injury) except at designaed points -- usually 1/2 way through a quarter. Then, usually, it's 5-out, 5-in. So, everyone gets to play the "required" amount, the playing time isn't drastically reduced, and the games still end (and the next one starts) on time.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Just because the rules allow or don't prohibit something doesn't necessarily mean it is ethical or acceptable.

In a running clock league like this, I'd roll the clock once this particular timeout ends...even if it didn't normally start. The clock would run during the T FTs...eating up the clock anyway....that's assuming I don't just declare it a travesty and go home.

At the same time, I'd be quite particular about not letting subs in that were "not ready".

Neither of these forms of gamesmanship should not be part of youth sports.

And just because it's not standard doesn't mean it's unethical.

That said, I agree. The clock would start "on the ready." In the end, it would cost the kids playing time rather than save it (due to the free throws).