Timeout question

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm sure that Nevadaref will come with it eventually. The time it takes him to come up with an interpretation is inversely proportional to the age of the interpretation.

5.8.3. Situation E covers this play.

In (b) covers this clearly and says you go with an accidental whistle and you do not grant the timeout.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

5.8.3. Situation E covers this play. In (b) covers this clearly and says you go with an accidental whistle and you do not grant the timeout.

Thanks JRutledge. I think that the asterisk before the case play indicates that the case play is new. That's why it took so long for Nevaderef to come up with an interpretation. If it had a been a fifteen year old interpretation, then he would have come up with it in a few seconds. According to the "Law Of Nevadaref Interpretations", the time it takes Nevadaref to come up with an interpretation is inversely proportional to the age of the interpretation.

*5.8.3 SITUATION E: A1 is dribbling the ball in his/her backcourt when: (a) the Team B head coach requests and is erroneously granted a time-out by an official; or (b) the Team A head coach is yelling “side out” offensive instructions to his/her team and the official stops play believing the coach requested a time-out. RULING: In (a), Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was requested and granted; once granted it cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B. All privileges and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams. Play will resume with a Team A throw-in nearest to where play was stopped. In (b), an accidental whistle has occurred. Team A was not requesting a time-out, and therefore, should not be granted or charged with one. Play is resumed at the point of interruption. (4-36-1; 4-36-2a)

[JRutledge]

Billy, it took me 5 minutes to find. Nothing anyone had to pull out of their hat.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I'm sure that Nevadaref will come with it eventually. The time it takes him to come up with an interpretation is inversely proportional to the age of the interpretation.

It also depends upon whether he is out working a post-season game.

Regional tournament this week. State tourney the next.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

It also depends upon whether he is out working a post-season game. Regional tournament this week. State tourney the next.

Enjoy. I work a lot of state tournament games, from the stands. I do occasionally get a few league, or conference, tournament games, but that's the way the Peter Principle works:

"In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence. (Dr. Laurence J. Peter, 1968)

[UNH IM Ref]

Ok so when do we call a T for an illegal timeout call? It's only when the team has no timeouts to call right? Also can we just ignore the timeout call if we recognize the team has no timeouts to call and is it only a T if we inadvertently grant the T.O.?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by UNH IM Ref

Ok so when do we call a T for an illegal timeout call? It's only when the team has no timeouts to call right?

What else would there be?

Originally Posted by UNH IM Ref

Also can we just ignore the timeout call if we recognize the team has no timeouts to call....

I stopped you here. The answer is no.
The only time a TO request is ignored is if the team does not have the right to request one at that time. Examples, they do not have player control or disposal for a throwin. If they request a TO when they are allowed to request one, they get it. If they have no more allotted TOs, they get one anyway along with the T.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

"In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence. (Dr. Laurence J. Peter, 1968)

... and remain there.

I actually found Peter's book a couple weeks ago, when rummaging through some old boxes. Felt a little like MTD, except I wasn't in the attic.