Consecutive Time-out

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't believe that it is the same because there is no live ball time between when the request is made and when the time-out is granted. Both are occurring during the same dead ball period. That is the difference to me.

This is where it's not clear to me, because I don't see it as the same dead ball period. There's the dead ball period where the TO is originally granted (perhaps a violation). Then there's the dead ball period of the TO. There's the period within the TO where a sub cannot enter the game (after the first warning horn). Different dead ball periods that allow for different things to happen; for example, during the first dead ball period (after the violation is called), would you allow for players to sit on the bench? Of course, during the next dead ball period, when the first TO is granted, players can sit on the bench, but you wouldn't allow them to be anywhere on the floor like you would during the first dead ball period. Different dead ball periods, even though happening consecutively. Just like two TO's - it's not the same TO period, it's two different TO periods happening consecutively.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

He asked for two. He gets two. If he is ready early and so is the other team, then we can short the second one and resume play, but it is still being charged. Too late to change his mind.

So, if a coach asks for a TO on the made FT (which is requested and granted during a dead ball period), then they change their mind after the made FT, would you still grant it/charge it? What rule/case play backs you up either way?

Again, there seems to be a chance for problems that could be avioded by simply making sure the request for the second TO happens during a period after the first TO is done. For me, that could simply be a nod from the huddle that yes, they do want that second TO.

[IREFU2]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

This is where it's not clear to me, because I don't see it as the same dead ball period. There's the dead ball period where the TO is originally granted (perhaps a violation). Then there's the dead ball period of the TO. There's the period within the TO where a sub cannot enter the game (after the first warning horn). Different dead ball periods that allow for different things to happen; for example, during the first dead ball period (after the violation is called), would you allow for players to sit on the bench? Of course, during the next dead ball period, when the first TO is granted, players can sit on the bench, but you wouldn't allow them to be anywhere on the floor like you would during the first dead ball period. Different dead ball periods, even though happening consecutively. Just like two TO's - it's not the same TO period, it's two different TO periods happening consecutively.


So, if a coach asks for a TO on the made FT (which is requested and granted during a dead ball period), then they change their mind after the made FT, would you still grant it/charge it? What rule/case play backs you up either way?

Again, there seems to be a chance for problems that could be avioded by simply making sure the request for the second TO happens during a period after the first TO is done. For me, that could simply be a nod from the huddle that yes, they do want that second TO.

I believe in the rules its states that anything not covered in the rules is up to the discretion of the Referee or something to that face. Dont have my rule books here.

[M&M Guy]

And, then there's rule 4-43-2: "A successive time-out is one which is granted to either team before the clock has started following the previous time-out."

So, doesn't that say the successive TO is granted following the first one?

What about 5-8-3: "Grant's a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out..."?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

So, if a coach asks for a TO on the made FT (which is requested and granted during a dead ball period), then they change their mind after the made FT, would you still grant it/charge it? What rule/case play backs you up either way?

I would never grant a request for a time-out in which there is a lag between the request and the granting that encompasses live ball action. That is clearly improper and I have never advocated such.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Again, there seems to be a chance for problems that could be avioded by simply making sure the request for the second TO happens during a period after the first TO is done. For me, that could simply be a nod from the huddle that yes, they do want that second TO.

I'm cool with that, and even suggested it in an earlier post before I began to consider the issue further.

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

And, then there's rule 4-43-2: "A successive time-out is one which is granted to either team before the clock has started following the previous time-out."

So, doesn't that say the successive TO is granted following the first one?

What about 5-8-3: "Grant's a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out..."?

Okay, M&M that seems pretty convincing to me.

However, I have found some language which doesn't mesh with that in the Simplified & Illustrated book.
In the picture:
(1) During a 30-second time-out
(2) Coach: Give us a 60-second time-out
(3) Official: Charge the 30 and also a 60
Scorer: Ok

Caption:
In (1) the coach decides to call a 30-second time-out. In (2) the coach decides to call a 60-second time-out and the official properly instructs the scorer to also charge a 60-second time-out which begins immediately upon expiration of the 30-second time-out.


So . I guess that the S&I book is failing to adhere to precision.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I would never grant a request for a time-out in which there is a lag between the request and the granting that encompasses live ball action. That is clearly improper and I have never advocated such.

I know that, but I was just trying to make the point that there was also a lag time encompassing different dead ball periods as well.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I'm cool with that, and even suggested it in an earlier post before I began to consider the issue further.

Haven't you ever heard the phrase, "Always trust your first instinct?"

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

So . I guess that the S&I book is failing to adhere to precision.

I don't know how "official" the S&I book is; I've never actually used it. But I don't disagree with it as much because it doesn't say at what point during the first 30 the coach asks for the next TO. The request isn't made "following" the first TO, but I'm willing to do the same thing as before, "Coach, give me a confirmation once the horn goes off ending this one first." I would certainly disagree with it if it said the coach requested both a 30 AND a full at the same time.