Consecutive Time-out

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I was thinking about this last night and it occurred to me that the timing of the coach's request is unusual, but seems to be proper. According to 5-8-3 the coach has every right to request another time-out during a time-out. Afterall, the ball is dead and there is no replacement of player pending, so why not?
I'm inclined to honor to the request and instruct the timer to simply time a another time-out following the expiration of the current one. I would ask the timer to sound all of the horns as normal.

Just for added certainty, I'll see if I can locate anything in writing from the NFHS on this.

Just thinking out loud (well, as loud as my keyboard gets), but how would this differ from a coach asking for any other TO in the future? "After they make this FT, give me a TO." "My team's gonna pass the ball around to run some time off, so when the clock gets down to 10 give me a TO." Yea, I know there's a live ball in between there, but I guess my thinking is a TO is granted when it's able to be taken, not granted for some point in the future. In the OP, I would've told the coach the same thing I tell coaches who ask for the TO after an upcoming FT, "Thanks for giving me the heads up; just remind me again after the FT (or TO)". Iow, I wouldn't have made a big deal about "denying" the request, just make them give me a nod or such to verify the next TO request at the end of the first.

What would you do if the coach requests two TO's at once, then decides before the first one ends that they don't need the second one after all? Is it still considered "granted"?