Help with a rule citation?

[CoachCER]

We had a situation in the semis of my 7th-8th grade rec league today and it is one of times when I am certain of the rule, but I can't find my rulebook to verify the ruling.

Team A is inbounding on the sideline with 3 seconds to go, down by 3 after a traveling violation on Team B.
The coach of Team A requests and is granted a time out.
After the time out, Team A lines up to inbound the ball, sees the alignment of the defense, and requests another time out.

At this point, the coach of Team B begins to have kittens, insisting that time outs can never be called back to back, and that Team A should receive a technical.

The ruling from the official who started to grant the time out request was that time outs can not be called back to back on a deadball, and that he wasn't granting the request. The ball was then put into play by Team A.

Now my understanding is that the second time out request by Team A was legal, and could be granted.

I discussed this with both officials after the game, and one believed the request was legal, while the one who denied the request (a solid guy, does some varsity ball) decided that maybe he braincramped and did deny a legal request for a time out. I will say this was at the end of a long day for both refs, and I think we were all fuzzy brained at the end.

If this is the case, could someone provide me the NFHS citation either way? I know I have made the same request as a coach without an issue, and I just want to double check.

[just another ref]

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.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by CoachCER

We had a situation in the semis of my 7th-8th grade rec league today and it is one of times when I am certain of the rule, but I can't find my rulebook to verify the ruling.

Team A is inbounding on the sideline with 3 seconds to go, down by 3 after a traveling violation on Team B.
The coach of Team A requests and is granted a time out.
After the time out, Team A lines up to inbound the ball, sees the alignment of the defense, and requests another time out.

At this point, the coach of Team B begins to have kittens, insisting that time outs can never be called back to back, and that Team A should receive a technical.

The ruling from the official who started to grant the time out request was that time outs can not be called back to back on a deadball, and that he wasn't granting the request. The ball was then put into play by Team A.

Now my understanding is that the second time out request by Team A was legal, and could be granted.

I discussed this with both officials after the game, and one believed the request was legal, while the one who denied the request (a solid guy, does some varsity ball) decided that maybe he braincramped and did deny a legal request for a time out. I will say this was at the end of a long day for both refs, and I think we were all fuzzy brained at the end.

If this is the case, could someone provide me the NFHS citation either way? I know I have made the same request as a coach without an issue, and I just want to double check.

Here is the definition of time-outs (and successive time-outs) and who can take them and when:
4-43 TIME-OUT
ART. 1 . . . A 60-second time-out charged to a team is a maximum of one
minute in length. A 30-second time-out charged to a team is a maximum 30
seconds in length.
ART. 2 . . . A successive time-out is one which is granted to either team before the clock has started following the previous time-out.

The ONLY time successive time-outs are not permitted is at the expiration of regulation or any OT period per......
5-12-3. . . Successive time-outs shall not be granted after expiration of playing time for the fourth quarter or any extra period.

[Nevadaref]

Others have already provided the proper NFHS rules references for you, but in plain English here is what you need to know.

With 3 seconds remaining in the quarter, there is no restriction on how many time-outs either or both teams may request and be granted and the official should have granted your request.

Following the expiration of time in the 4th quarter or any extra period, only one time-out by either team is permitted. Once that time-out is over neither team can take another one until the ball becomes live in the next period of play, if there is one.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Others have already provided the proper NFHS rules references for you, but in plain English here is what you need to know.

With 3 seconds remaining in the quarter, there is no restriction on how many time-outs either or both teams may request and be granted and the official should have granted your request.

Following the expiration of time in the 4th quarter or any extra period, only one time-out by either team is permitted. Once that time-out is over neither team can take another one until the ball becomes live in the next period of play, if there is one.

If there isn't one, how did you grant even one time-out?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

If there isn't one, how did you grant even one time-out?

Time may have expired in the period, but there may still be game activity to be completed.
For example, a player may have been fouled while attempting a try and time expired while the try was in flight. We now have a situation in which a player will attempt FTs after the expiration of time in the quarter. The score may be tied or this team may be trailing (the game would be over if this team is ahead), but as long as the score is close enough for the FTs to possibly make a difference in the outcome they must be attempted. The outcome of the FTs will determine whether there is another period of play.

The opposing coach may wish to take a time-out in an attempt to "ice" this shooter. The rule is in place to prevent that coach from taking multiple time-outs in a row to really "freeze" this shooter.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Time may have expired in the period, but there may still be game activity to be completed.
For example, a player may have been fouled while attempting a try and time expired while the try was in flight. We now have a situation in which a player will attempt FTs after the expiration of time in the quarter. The score may be tied or this team may be trailing (the game would be over if this team is ahead), but as long as the score is close enough for the FTs to possibly make a difference in the outcome they must be attempted. The outcome of the FTs will determine whether there is another period of play.

I am educated. I had always read this to say the end of the period, as opposed to the expiration of time in the period.

The opposing coach may wish to take a time-out in an attempt to "ice" this shooter. The rule is in place to prevent that coach from taking multiple time-outs in a row to really "freeze" this shooter.

Is this your theory, (I can't think of another) or is this published somewhere?
A coach would rather use multiple time-outs here than save them for use in a potential next period where they might be crucial? Seems unlikely.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Is this your theory, (I can't think of another) or is this published somewhere?
A coach would rather use multiple time-outs here than save them for use in a potential next period where they might be crucial? Seems unlikely.

I suppose that the (unhappy) coach could want to take multiple time-outs to "discuss" the call with the official.

[BillyMac]

5.12.3 SITUATION A: A1 is fouled by B1 while in the act of shooting. While the try is in flight the horn sounds ending the fourth quarter playing time. The ball continues its flight and goes through the basket to tie the score. Before A1 attempts the free throw as part of the fourth quarter, Team B captain requests and is granted a 60-second time-out. Team A or B captain then requests a 30-second time-out during the same dead-ball period. RULING: The second request is denied. At the end of playing time for the fourth quarter or any overtime period successive time-outs shall not be granted. This means a time-out cannot be granted either team until the clock has run in the extra period – assuming the free throw is missed. Successive time-outs may be granted in all situations except after time has expired in the fourth quarter or any extra period.

5.12.3 SITUATION B: Following the expiration of time for the first extra period,
the coach of Team B is charged with a technical foul. Team B requests a time-out before the free throws are administered to start the second extra period. The time-out request is granted. Thereafter, the official administers the first free throw to A1. Following the attempt: (a) Team B; or (b) Team A, then requests a time-out. RULING: The request cannot be granted in either (a) or (b), as it would be considered a successive time-out. The fact that the ball did become live between the two requests has no bearing on the ruling. Another time-out request by either team cannot be honored until after the clock has started in the second extra period.

[CoachCER]

Gentlemen,

Thank you for the replies. I actually wasn't involved in the game, as I am just the director of the league. When the officials and I discussed it was I cleaned up the gym, the one who kicked it realized he was thinking of the end of the game situations where only the one can be granted.

I wanted the rule citation to show it to Coach B, as he was still trying to argue that a technical should have been issued against Team A.

Now let me ask this one.
Same situation.
Team A is granted the first time out.
And then the second.
They then have trouble getting the ball inbounds, and request a 3rd.
Based on my understanding, the request can be granted. Am I interpreting that correctly? (Obviously there is a story behind this question, but I shall not go into it!)

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by CoachCER

Gentlemen,

Thank you for the replies. I actually wasn't involved in the game, as I am just the director of the league. When the officials and I discussed it was I cleaned up the gym, the one who kicked it realized he was thinking of the end of the game situations where only the one can be granted.

I wanted the rule citation to show it to Coach B, as he was still trying to argue that a technical should have been issued against Team A.

Now let me ask this one.
Same situation.
Team A is granted the first time out.
And then the second.
They then have trouble getting the ball inbounds, and request a 3rd.
Based on my understanding, the request can be granted. Am I interpreting that correctly? (Obviously there is a story behind this question, but I shall not go into it!)

The only time successive time-outs cannot be granted is during the situation discussed above. When they can be granted, there is no limit on the number.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Is this your theory, (I can't think of another) or is this published somewhere?
A coach would rather use multiple time-outs here than save them for use in a potential next period where they might be crucial? Seems unlikely.

Actually, if you think about it, this is the most CRUCIAL time!!! Let's say the score is Team A 62 and Team B 61. B1 has just been fouled on a three point attempt. You are the Team A head coach. If B1 MISSES all three shots, you win the game. If he makes two of three, you LOSE the game. The ONLY time you will need these time-outs is in the case B1 makes ONE and ONLY ONE FT. If you had four of your remaining five time-outs left, why not use them here? After all, you get one more full TO in the OT period.

The rule prohibits this action, of course.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The only time successive time-outs cannot be granted is during the situation discussed above. When they can be granted, there is no limit on the number, up to the team's remaining quota.

Fixed it for ya.

[williebfree]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Fixed it for ya.

But at the expense of a Technical Foul.

[CoachCER]

Originally Posted by just another ref

The only time successive time-outs cannot be granted is during the situation discussed above. When they can be granted, there is no limit on the number.

Thanks. That is how I read it, and wanted to pass this on to a friend.