Consecutive Time-out

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Consider this situation:
Team A is travelling in two vans to the game site. Van 1 has the normal starting five and Van 2 has the second five. Van 1 gets a flat tire and is delayed. Van 2 is there in time for warm-ups and the scheduled tip-off.
The officials say that game must begin on time and so it does.
During the first dead ball, Coach A informs the official that he is going to take all five of his time-outs in the hope that his starting five can get there with more of the game left.

How would you handle that?

I would tell him to request the time out at the proper time -- if his team was due to throw-in, he should really wait until I get to 4 seconds on the count to maximize the time he's wasting. If the other team has the ball, request the time out before it's handed to the thrower-in. I would not just award 5 consecutive timeout and tell the timer to count down 4 minutes.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Consider this situation:
Team A is travelling in two vans to the game site. Van 1 has the normal starting five and Van 2 has the second five. Van 1 gets a flat tire and is delayed. Van 2 is there in time for warm-ups and the scheduled tip-off.
The officials say that game must begin on time and so it does.
During the first dead ball, Coach A informs the official that he is going to take all five of his time-outs in the hope that his starting five can get there with more of the game left.

How would you handle that?

Get the booster club to buy a new van...........

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I would not just award 5 consecutive timeout and tell the timer to count down 4 minutes.

Why not? What rule prohibits the coach from requesting all five time-outs at once?

[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..."?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why not? What rule prohibits the coach from requesting all five time-outs at once?

The word successive, to me, means one after the other. I will grant them, one after the other.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Get the booster club to buy a new van...........

But, seriously, I don't see anything that allows to charge 2, 3, 4, or 5 TO's in a row all at one moment, even if they don't use them. I would do what Rich suggests - use one, get to 4 on the throw-in count, use the next one, until either the van shows up, or they run out of TO's. But I would not charge them with all five TO's if the van shows up after the second.

Nevada - here's a scenario for you: the team has 2 TO's left, but the coach says, "Give me 3 TO's in a row." Then, during the first TO period, the coach finds out he only had 2 left. Do you charge the T, and when does it get charged?

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Why not? What rule prohibits the coach from requesting all five time-outs at once?

Digressing somewhat, any problem with coach saying "if we make free throw, time out". Situation could involve a foul, opposing coach wanting TO and first saying, I don't want it now as other coach requested one.

Just askin'

[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.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Digressing somewhat, any problem with coach saying "if we make free throw, time out". Situation could involve a foul, opposing coach wanting TO and first saying, I don't want it now as other coach requested one.

Just askin'

As mentioned before, I don't believe we can grant TO's "in the future", so to speak. So what I say to a coach is something like, "Thanks for the heads-up, just give me a nod to confirm it when it happens". Then, if your partner has the other team's request before you get your nod, then obviously the other team gets the TO charged to them, since they requested it first.

[red]

Based on above discussion - grant them

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Get the booster club to buy a new van...........

Join AAA.