Double time-out
 

Read this in the 2010-2011 Basketball Rules Interpretations on NFHS.org:

SITUATION 5: Team A scores a field goal. A1 requests a time-out from the lead official at the exact same time that the head coach from Team B requests a time-out from the trail official. RULING: Both teams are charged a time-out. If both request a 30-second time-out, the time-out duration shall be 30 seconds. If one team requests a 60-second time-out and the other a 30, the duration shall be 60 seconds. Once a time-out is requested and granted, it shall not be revoked. (5-8-3b)

How often does this actually happen? This is something I have not seen yet.

Exact same time? Both timeout requests haapen at the same exact moment? One happened first...

I want to be in Vegas with the odds that two officials hear time out the exact same time and both blow their whistles exactly the same time...

One happened before the other....Communicate and figure it out...and this ruling does not apply

How often does it happen? Try never. Put this in the same category of call frequency as a multiple foul. It may be the rule, but will never be called.

Kelvin, you know better than that. It's a case play. They're not telling you to communicate. They're telling you to follow the rule. And that case play now is the rule.

We don't get to pick and choose which rules we can apply or not, nor are we allowed to make up our own rules That's exactly why the FED issued POE #1 in this year's rule book. You can't ignore their rule and tell everybody to follow your rule instead.

These case plays usually are written because the situation actually did happen to somebody, unlikely as it may seem. It may never happen, but if it does they've given us the direction to follow.

You have 2 opposing coaches trying to call a time out at the same time. Why would you just make an arbitrary choice and give one coach an unfair advantage by charging his opponent with the TO and not him? Do you really think that's the purpose and intent of ANY rule?

I'm sure it's happened before...probably in some 7th grade girl's C team game where all the crazy plays happen haha... :D

I think most officials would view this exactly like they'd view a multiple foul. There's the rule and a case book play clearly showing us how to handle it, but practical application means one person is getting charged with a foul, and one team will have their timeout recognized before the other team.

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?

Myself, I kinda like to follow the direction given in the front of the rule book...A player or a team should not be permitted an advantage which is not intended by rule." You're advocating giving one team an undeserved advantage by not charging them with a legal, requested timeout.

But that's just me.

Btw, what do tell the coach that asks why he got charged with a TO and his opposing coach didn't?

That case play tells you how to handle a situation where you are not sure which coach called a TO first. The rulesmakers don't want you to pick one in a situation like that. If you are sure that one coach called a TO before the other, the case play does not apply. In that case, you just grant the first request and ignore the second.

Last One In Is A Rotten Egg ...
 

Amen.

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.

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.

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? :D

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.

No Blood, No Foul ...
 

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.