Double time-out

[APG]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

I would hope that most officials would view this case play from the perpective that I outlined above. What you are advocating is abitrarily picking one coach to favor and one coach to screw. Do you really think that ANY rule in the history of basketball has ever been implented with that intent in mind?

I apologize if I made it seem like I'd arbitrary pick and team to charge a timeout too. If by some rare chance this play ever happened, I would administer the play as directed above.

I still think that many officials would treat a situation like this like they would a multiple foul...it's in the rule book, there's a case book play for it, yet it's never going to be called. Same with a situation where a shooter gets hit on the arm, continues in the air, and a defender comes in late for a blocking foul. I know when I've asked the top officials in my association (many who also work all levels of college as well) how they'd handle these situations, they all told me to pick a foul and go with it. Technically, by rule, that would be arbitrarily picking one player vs the other, and potentially taking away free throws that a team, by rule, is entitled to.

[Adam]

With a multiple foul, we normally pick one based on some reason. Either we pick the first one, or we pick the hardest one if the difference is significant.
Frankly, I can't think of any reason to pick one coach over the other when they've both requested TO in such close chronological proximity that we can't tell. The odds of it happening are slim, but it's nice to have an interp backing a common sense resolution.

The only thing I'd do differently is grant the TOs consecutively rather than concurrently. Seems to me if you're going to force them both to burn one, you should have two total TOs.

[tjones1]

Sooooo....

They both request a time-out at exactly the same time. You grant them each a time-out.

Who do you ask first what they want?

[chseagle]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Sooooo....

They both request a time-out at exactly the same time. You grant them each a time-out.

Who do you ask first what they want?

Wouldn't that in a way, show undue advantage to one team or the other however?

In the Scenario stated, it says to grant both timeouts at the same time, however if one is a 60 & the other the 30, you'd make the request granted a 60 yet the team that got the 30 granted still has used one of their 2 30-sec. TOs in the book.

If you grant one a 60 & the other 30, & decide to grant both with the 60 first than the 30 (or vice versa), that would give undue advantage to both teams for an extended rest period, would it not? Or the one team could just sit during the other's timeout then conference during their time out, given a slight unfair advantage?

Just trying to figure out the reasoning behind why this scenario decided to be brought up & the crazy solution behind it.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by chseagle

Wouldn't that in a way, show undue advantage to one team or the other however?

In the Scenario stated, it says to grant both timeouts at the same time, however if one is a 60 & the other the 30, you'd make the request granted a 60 yet the team that got the 30 granted still has used one of their 2 30-sec. TOs in the book.

If you grant one a 60 & the other 30, & decide to grant both with the 60 first than the 30 (or vice versa), that would give undue advantage to both teams for an extended rest period, would it not? Or the one team could just sit during the other's timeout then conference during their time out, given a slight unfair advantage?

Just trying to figure out the reasoning behind why this scenario decided to be brought up & the crazy solution behind it.

The timeouts would run concurrently...not consecutively....for the longer of the two if they are not the same.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The only thing I'd do differently is grant the TOs consecutively rather than concurrently. Seems to me if you're going to force them both to burn one, you should have two total TOs.

Though not the case with two injured, or bleeding, opponents who wish to remain in the game at the expense of two timeouts.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Though not the case with two injured, or bleeding, opponents who wish to remain in the game at the expense of two timeouts.

True, but that's another change I would make. I see no reason not to make them consecutive; especially with the OP.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I see no reason not to make them consecutive; especially with the OP.

Sigh......



Rookies.....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Sigh......



Rookies.....

What was I thinking?

[just another ref]

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."