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.

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?

I said that it would cover both situations, but I really couldn't see where it covered anything else.

How I am reading & understanding the case play, it's a JIC CYB.

I personally think the idea that it was written for either situation is silly. There's no way they'd write a case play to deal with obstinant officials that doesn't tell them to figure out it. And again, the fact that the opinion is virtually unanimous is really all I need to know.
If it wasn't the intent, then the committee would have re-worded it in light of the unanimous interpretation of the case play.

I agree. But I find it even more silly to require both fouls to be reported because of shoddy mechanics by the officials. This is especially true when, by definition, it is impossible that both calls are correct.

This is where you have the whole thing wrong. It had nothing to do with shoddy mechanics. It is a matter two equally empowered officials having a different opinion of the same situation and both of them having communicated their opinion. Good mechanics just cover up that difference of opinion. It doesn't actually make the call results the correct call.

This, too, is incorrect. A double foul is not impossible, so why not one where the offensive player happens to have the ball? (Or: show me which definition defines away a blarge.)

Not impossible, just highly unlikely.

If good mechanics cover it up, why would the mechanics which exposed it not be considered shoddy?

4-7 Blocking/Charging How is it possible for both to happen at the same time?

B1 moves into A1's path without establishing LGP, and A1 shoves him in the chest as they collide.

I'm not saying this should be called a double foul. I'm saying it's not impossible by rule.

A block/charge/blarge is one point of contact that is viewed differently by two officials. What you're describing is two independent points of contact....not two opinions of the same contact. That is two different fouls....either a true double foul, or one foul which preceded the other and made the ball dead.

Whatever. The double foul I'm describing might look like a charge to one official and a block to another.

Oh, and I'm delighted (and a little relieved) that you agree with me. ;)

The play you describe could not, by definition, be both a block and a charge.

Let's just make the discussion easier for everyone. The first one to the table wins LMAO. :D:cool: