Sigh......

http://www.animatedgif.net/food/beer2_e0.gif

Rookies.....:rolleyes:

What was I thinking?

This reminds me of another case which we won't even mention. Sure, it tells us what to do if indeed the requests were made at "the exact same time." But what are the odds of that? Furthermore, it doesn't say the two officials cannot confer. (neither does the other case we won't mention)

"My guy requested time out as the ball came out of the net."

"I didn't see the request until it was bouncing on the floor."

tweet

"Time out A."

Problem is, in spite of your protestations to the contrary, the case play to which you refer doesn't give the option of a conference. This case play does not prohibit it, however. In fact, proper application would pretty much require it.

Communication is always an option.

You're the only one who claims the case play in question doesn't say what it says; which is that once the two officials communicate their opposing preliminary signals, all further communication is relegated to determining how "point of interruption" applies to the particular situation. :D

I don't see the problem here. We get to burn two TOs and only take one! One less TO to slow the game down later! :)

Or you could always ask the table crew who called it first! ;)

The case play in question does not mention signals, preliminary, opposing, or any other kind. It does not say the two officials should or should not communicate with each other before reporting one or more calls. Above all, the word call is not defined in any book. Nothing in any book says that any signal, preliminary or any other kind, obligates any official to make or report any call.

These are facts of the case. They are undisputed.*


*A Few Good Men was on TNT over the weekend.

"You can't handle the truth!"

That would only work if the table was not watching the ball. From my understanding (and from everyone's badgering) the table is only supposed to help the floor officials with any floor decisions is with last second shots/fouls.

As I stated in the OP, if they were called at the same time, each time would lose a time out as soon as it was granted, however if there was some lag time between the requests then would there be two separate time outs.

And yet every single veteran, interpreter, assigner, evaluator, etc., I have talked to on line and in person sees it the same way I do; as does every single person on this board except for you.

I'm still not sure what you think the case play refers to. Do you think it's in place for obstinant officials? Do you think it's in place for the once in a million call where two officials actually report their fouls without knowledge of the other? Is there another option?

It's not like you're arguing whether it's a good rule/policy; you're arguing the actual rule itself. I'm not even that obstinant. :D

No, if there is some lag time, the officials will grant the TO to the first coach to make the request. If the other coach still wants to use it, he can request it again during the inevitable discussion at the table.

But why? Read the above, undisputed facts again and tell me where I am wrong.

That about covers it.

Nobody thinks it's a good rule, do they? I have no problem with the rule,
4-19-8. As I read it, it is virtually impossible for a play to happen which would result in this godforsaken case play.

So which is it?

Which is what?

Was the case play written for obstinant officials?