The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Consecutive Time-out (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/50405-consecutive-time-out.html)

red Wed Dec 17, 2008 06:53pm
Consecutive Time-out
 
Situation: Team A is trailing by 2 points with 1:20 on the clock. Immediatley after Team B is fouled, going to the line for 2 shot bonus, Team A coach requests time-out. While report the TO, the coach requests to have another time-out following the first - consecutive TO. I denied his request. He called his second TO after the first free-throw was completed.

What is the ruling. I didn't get a clear interpretation from the Rule Book?

Rufus Wed Dec 17, 2008 07:09pm
I think consecutive are ok based on 5.8.3a & b:

Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official grants a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted only when:
a. The ball is in control or at the disposal of a player of his/her team.
b. The ball is dead, unless replacement of a disqualified, or injured player(s), or a player directed to leave the game is pending, and a substitute(s) is available and required.

Since the ball was still dead (i.e., hadn't been handed to the shooter yet) I would grant it.

Case 5.8.3b sort of addresses this saying that following a time-out either team requests a time-out. They didn't seem to have an issue there either unless the ball had been made live by handing to the thrower-in.

Mark Padgett Wed Dec 17, 2008 07:12pm
NF rule 5-12-3 states successive timeouts shall not be granted after expiration of playing time for the fourth quarter or any extra period. There's no rule prohibiting them when there's time left on the clock during regulation time. This seems to be pretty clear to me.

BillyMac Wed Dec 17, 2008 09:05pm
I Want Answer From An Official With Overtime Experience ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Padgett (Post 559175)
This seems to be pretty clear to me.
How can you be "clear" about any rule involving an extra period?

Nevadaref Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Padgett (Post 559175)
NF rule 5-12-3 states successive timeouts shall not be granted after expiration of playing time for the fourth quarter or any extra period. There's no rule prohibiting them when there's time left on the clock during regulation time. This seems to be pretty clear to me.
This is correct. The OP was mistaken.

Skarecrow Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Padgett (Post 559175)
NF rule 5-12-3 states successive timeouts shall not be granted after expiration of playing time for the fourth quarter or any extra period. There's no rule prohibiting them when there's time left on the clock during regulation time. This seems to be pretty clear to me.
I might be wrong, but I think the OP hinted that the coach was asking for TWO at the same time...telling the official he wanted a second timeout after the first had expired, so it seemed to be a "simultaneous" timeout request and not a consecutive timeout...which he correctly denied. I might be wrong, but that is how I read the coach's request in the OP.

Nevadaref Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by red (Post 559172)
Situation: Team A is trailing by 2 points with 1:20 on the clock. Immediatley after Team B is fouled, going to the line for 2 shot bonus, Team A coach requests time-out. While report the TO, the coach requests to have another time-out following the first - consecutive TO. I denied his request. He called his second TO after the first free-throw was completed.

What is the ruling. I didn't get a clear interpretation from the Rule Book?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarecrow (Post 559240)
I might be wrong, but I think the OP hinted that the coach was asking for TWO at the same time...telling the official he wanted a second timeout after the first had expired, so it seemed to be a "simultaneous" timeout request and not a consecutive timeout...which he correctly denied. I might be wrong, but that is how I read the coach's request in the OP.
It seems that the timing of the request was imprecise, but that what the coach was seeking was proper. The official incorrectly denied him a time-out when he could have used one. If the timing of the request is the problem, then simply tell the coach to please ask again at the end of this time-out. I believe that red misunderstood the rule.

I applaud him for coming on here and seeking clarification. He will know it now.

Skarecrow Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 559243)
It seems that the timing of the request was imprecise, but that what the coach was seeking was proper. The official incorrectly denied him a time-out when he could have used one. If the timing of the request is the problem, then simply tell the coach to please ask again at the end of this time-out. I believe that red misunderstood the rule.

I applaud him for coming on here and seeking clarification. He will know it now.
I agree with that assessment....

red Thu Dec 18, 2008 08:33am
So, the coach cannot have a two time out request, but he could have followed his initial time out with another time before the and action on the floor. Thanks for the clarification.

bob jenkins Thu Dec 18, 2008 08:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by red (Post 559267)
So, the coach cannot have a two time out request, but he could have followed his initial time out with another time before the and action on the floor. Thanks for the clarification.
Note that in NCAA a coach can request that 2 30-secpond TOs be "combined" into a 60-second TO so the players can sit. This request must be made before the TO starts.

Nevadaref Thu Dec 18, 2008 09:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by red (Post 559267)
So, the coach cannot have a two time out request, but he could have followed his initial time out with another time before the and action on the floor. Thanks for the clarification.
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.

IREFU2 Thu Dec 18, 2008 09:22am
I have been looking and havent seen anything stating that its against the rules to call consecutive timeouts. I think its the wording, its successive, not consecutive....

M&M Guy Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 559278)
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"?

Nevadaref Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 559334)
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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 559334)
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"?
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.

Nevadaref Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:44am
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?

Rich Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 559338)
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 Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 559338)
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 Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 559340)
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 Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 559336)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 559336)
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 Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 559353)
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 Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:18am
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 <B>following the previous time-out</B>."

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

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

Rich Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 559350)
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 Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by fullor30 (Post 559341)
Get the booster club to buy a new van...........
:D

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 Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 559350)
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 Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 559353)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 559353)
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by M&M Guy (Post 559355)
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 :confused:. I guess that the S&I book is failing to adhere to precision.

M&M Guy Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 559364)
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 559364)
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?" ;) :p

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 559364)
So :confused:. 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 Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by fullor30 (Post 559362)
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 Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:33pm
Based on above discussion - grant them

BillyMac Thu Dec 18, 2008 08:37pm
Or Even Better, AA ...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fullor30 (Post 559341)
Get the booster club to buy a new van...........
Join AAA.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:55pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1