Excessive Tiimeout -- No Official Notification

[Rusty Gilbert]

Curious question posed to me following a high school game last night.

Head coach of Team A, who trails by lots midway through 4th quarter, requests a its second timeout of the quarter, which is dutifully granted by the nearest official.

The coach of Team B goes wild, screaming that Team A is out of timeouts and that A cannot be awarded a timeout. (Of course, he is wrong!)

An official comes over to Team A coach and asks, "Did one of the officials come and tell you that you had no timeouts remaining after the one you called earlier in the quarter?" Team A coach said, "No."

Official goes to his 2 partners, polls them, and comes to the conclusion that, although the scorer had notfied the officials that Team A had been granted their final alloted timeout earlier in the fourth quarter, none of the officials had notified the team and its coach that they had no timeouts left.

Rule 2-11-6 spells out the notification requirements (scorer informs official who informs team and coach).

The officials determined that, even though they failed to make the team and coach notification as required by rule, a technical foul was still warranted. So a T was assessed, 2 free throws and the ball to B.

Was this correct or not?

How does this situation compare/correlate with the situation where a player commits fifth foul but the scorer does not inform officials (and consequently the coach is not informed), so the player remains in the game until discovery is later made (sixth foul, etc..)? Case book 10.5.3.

For example, there are rule-specific reporting requirements in each instance. And, at least in the latter situation, there is no "requirement" for the coach to self-report or self-police (coach may have known player's foul was #5, but coach had no obligation or expectation to remove player until "official notification" was made by officials).

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Rusty Gilbert

Curious question posed to me following a high school game last night.

Head coach of Team A, who trails by lots midway through 4th quarter, requests a its second timeout of the quarter, which is dutifully granted by the nearest official.

The coach of Team B goes wild, screaming that Team A is out of timeouts and that A cannot be awarded a timeout. (Of course, he is wrong!)

An official comes over to Team A coach and asks, "Did one of the officials come and tell you that you had no timeouts remaining after the one you called earlier in the quarter?" Team A coach said, "No."

Official goes to his 2 partners, polls them, and comes to the conclusion that, although the scorer had notfied the officials that Team A had been granted their final alloted timeout earlier in the fourth quarter, none of the officials had notified the team and its coach that they had no timeouts left.

Rule 2-11-6 spells out the notification requirements (scorer informs official who informs team and coach).

The officials determined that, even though they failed to make the team and coach notification as required by rule, a technical foul was still warranted. So a T was assessed, 2 free throws and the ball to B.

Was this correct or not?

How does this situation compare/correlate with the situation where a player commits fifth foul but the scorer does not inform officials (and consequently the coach is not informed), so the player remains in the game until discovery is later made (sixth foul, etc..)? Case book 10.5.3.

For example, there are rule-specific reporting requirements in each instance. And, at least in the latter situation, there is no "requirement" for the coach to self-report or self-police (coach may have known player's foul was #5, but coach had no obligation or expectation to remove player until "official notification" was made by officials).

Rusty Gilbert:

NFHS R10-S1-A7 states that it is a TF for a team to request an excess timeout. While R2-S11-A6 was not followed by the game officials, Team B is still charged for requesting an excess timeout. One should remember that even if the game officials know that a team has used all of its timeouts they cannot fail to grant a team's request for an excess timeout, assuming that the team requested its timeout per R2-S8-A3. R10-S1-A7 still applies if the game officials mistakenly grant a team's request for a timeout when it does not meet the requirements of R2-S8-A3.

With regard to the situation when the Scorer fails to notify the game officials that a player has committed his fifth foul (total person and technical) or second TF, the timeout situation is not the same. The rules specifically state that requesting an excess timout is a TF, while it is not an infraction of the rules for a player to continue to participate in the game after being disqualified and the player and his coach is not notified.

MTD, Sr.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Rusty Gilbert

Was this correct or not?

Yes, this was administered correctly.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

it is not an infraction of the rules for a player to continue to participate in the game after being disqualified and the player and his coach is not notified.

It absolutely is a technical foul to participate after being disqualified. The technical is charged directly to the head coach. 10-5-3.

However, if the head coach is never notified of a player's 5th foul, then the player is not disqualified. 4-14-2.

So your statement above should read: "it is not an infraction of the rules for a player to continue to participate in the game after accumulating his 5th foul or 2nd technical foul, as long as his coach has not been notified".

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

Yes, this was administered correctly.

I would have done at least one thing differently. I would have assessed an unsporting technical foul to the coach of Team B for his poor behavior. That would mean that each team gets charged with a technical foul and we can either consider them to be simultaneous and offset or we can shoot them in the order in which they occurred. That should take care of the problem.

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It absolutely is a technical foul to participate after being disqualified. The technical is charged directly to the head coach. 10-5-3.

However, if the head coach is never notified of a player's 5th foul, then the player is not disqualified. 4-14-2.

So your statement above should read: "it is not an infraction of the rules for a player to continue to participate in the game after accumulating his 5th foul or 2nd technical foul, as long as his coach has not been notified".

I concur. Terminology is important.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It absolutely is a technical foul to participate after being disqualified. The technical is charged directly to the head coach. 10-5-3.

However, if the head coach is never notified of a player's 5th foul, then the player is not disqualified. 4-14-2.

So your statement above should read: "it is not an infraction of the rules for a player to continue to participate in the game after accumulating his 5th foul or 2nd technical foul, as long as his coach has not been notified".

Scrapper1:

I thought what you said is what I said.

MTD, Sr.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Scrapper1:

I thought what you said is what I said.

As my sister would say, "But no, though."

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

As my sister would say, "But no, though."

Scrapper1:

I agree with your OP, but I knew what I said, and I thought you understood Ohio English.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

It absolutely is a technical foul to participate after being disqualified. The technical is charged directly to the head coach. 10-5-3.

Penalized if discovered while being violated: The head coach shall not permit a team member to participate after being removed from the game for disqualification. Head coach direct technical foul.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Scrapper1:

I agree with your OP, but I knew what I said, and I thought you understood Ohio English.

MTD, Sr.

I have it that some folks in the Pittsburgh area refer to this dialect as "Ohesian." Like they should talk.

Not to hijack, but I have a question similar to this regarding the 5th player coming on the floor late. Look for the thread.