Double time-out

[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."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by 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."

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.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Communication is always an option.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

[biggravy]

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!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

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!"