Simulaneous time out and foul

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Make a decision.

In your case, I probably lean towards the foul because the play was in your primary so I would say it would take longer for your partner to recognize that A1 has player control. His granting of the time-out may have been premature. But I'm making assumptions.

We went with the foul and my partner charged the HC a time out since he requested it. My question is would the coach then be able to rescind his timeout or not since he already requested it?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fiasco

We went with the foul and my partner charged the HC a time out since he requested it. My question is would the coach then be able to rescind his timeout or not since he already requested it?

I'd allow him to rescind it. Someone will be along soon to say it was already granted.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'd allow him to rescind it. Someone will be along soon to say it was already granted.

I agree. I think that makes me a coward.

And gratuitous shots at "someone" are always funny.

[just another ref]

The gray area of when the time out is granted: It appears often. Here, as well as in games.

[Back In The Saddle]

You've got to decide which was first, the granting of the TO or the foul. Under normal circumstances granting the TO first would be a good way to keep a foul out of the book.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

You've got to decide which was first, the granting of the TO or the foul. Under normal circumstances granting the TO first would be a good way to keep a foul out of the book.

The whistle really were simultaneous. There was no way to determine what happened first without instant replay. We went with the foul since it was in my primary, but my partner was under the impression that once the timeout was requested, and granted, it couldn't be rescinded.

Is there a rule that either disputes this or backs it up?

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by fiasco

The whistle really were simultaneous. There was no way to determine what happened first without instant replay. We went with the foul since it was in my primary, but my partner was under the impression that once the timeout was requested, and granted, it couldn't be rescinded.

Is there a rule that either disputes this or backs it up?

Yes, the rule of Common Sense.

Which means our friend from the Donner Pass region should be along shortly to argue that rule.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by fiasco

The whistle really were simultaneous. There was no way to determine what happened first without instant replay. We went with the foul since it was in my primary, but my partner was under the impression that once the timeout was requested, and granted, it couldn't be rescinded.

Is there a rule that either disputes this or backs it up?

The same rule I used to ask a coach if he still wanted it after I granted a TO following a change of possession. By rule, I should have stuck with it and granted it, giving the ball to the other team following the TO. I gave him the choice.

By rule, your partner was right. However....

[jdw3018]

I realize it's a mechanic and not a rule, but 3.4.4 A. 5. says "Do not grant a time-out after a foul until the necessary information has been given to the scorer.

It's weak, but you could point to this as a reason to give the coach a chance to rescind his request. Since you shouldn't grant the TO until after you report the foul you've decided occurred before the timeout, you don't have to give it.

Now, the same mechanic also says not to grant a TO while the ball is in possession of neither team or the opposing team, interrupted dribble, etc, and we know if we do grant one it is granted.

So, like I say, weak argument. But use it if you like.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by fiasco

The whistle really were simultaneous. There was no way to determine what happened first without instant replay.

As Tom Hanks would say, "There's no simultaneous in basketball".

[Paul LeBoutillier]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

As Tom Hanks would say, "There's no simultaneous in basketball".

When did Tom Hanks say that?

[refiator]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

As Tom Hanks would say, "There's no simultaneous in basketball".

I like that!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I agree. I think that makes me a coward.

And gratuitous shots at "someone" are always funny.

No gratuitious shot at anyone intended.

[GoodwillRef]

I am not granting the timeout if you call the foul....even if you have the timeout first you could have a dead ball technical if the contact if severe enough on the foul.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by fiasco

We went with the foul and my partner charged the HC a time out since he requested it. My question is would the coach then be able to rescind his timeout or not since he already requested it?

The coach would definitely get the choice of whether he still wanted the timeout in my game.