Consecutive 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.