Timeout request after request for serve

[SCalScoreKeeper]

exactly-and if a timeout was not available you have a point/side out to the other team.

[oldsetter]

Originally Posted by SCalScoreKeeper

exactly-and if a timeout was not available you have a point/side out to the other team.

So, you penalize the team for requesting a timeout by giving them a timeout?

[twotakedown]

Interesting question. Looked it up.

NFHS case book

11.2.1 Ruling (a) and (b) replay, time-out and substitution not granted. Comment: Since the coach's actions distracted the opponent's serve,a replay is directed by the R1.

So it's just like a denied request. Play on until the next dead ball.

[twotakedown]

Fixed answer in previous post.

[oldsetter]

Originally Posted by twotakedown

Interesting question. Looked it up.

NFHS case book

11.2.1 Ruling (a) and (b) replay, time-out and substitution not granted. Comment: Since the coach's actions distracted the opponent's serve,a replay is directed by the R1.

So it's just like a denied request. Play on until the next dead ball.

And then what? UD? If not, why not deny the 3rd timeout request?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by twotakedown

Interesting question. Looked it up.

NFHS case book

11.2.1 Ruling (a) and (b) replay, time-out and substitution not granted. Comment: Since the coach's actions distracted the opponent's serve,a replay is directed by the R1.

So it's just like a denied request. Play on until the next dead ball.

The only issue is with the wording. Since the coaches actions distracted the opponents serve, a replay is directed by the R1.

The problem is that if it is a replay, the time out request can be granted (8.1.6 C Comment, a replay and a reserve are not the same thing).

The problem is also that if it is called re-serve, this counts against a player, so it isn't fair to call it a reserve either.

Personally I think an additional note needs to be put in place regarding the term replay. A replay caused by a coaches action shall not allow substitutions, time outs, or substitution requests.

[oldsetter]

And so, if this it the coaches 3rd timeout, we ignore it, cancel the serve beacon, and re-beacon. No penalty. LOL. All because high school refs are smart enough to handle improper requests.

In NHFS there are a lot of things that can be worded differently (better) and several things that could be changed for the better.

[timasdf]

Here's what I do when a coach requests a timeout simultaneous to the beckon for serve... Grant the timeout! Note that I am not talking about a TO request "after" the whistle for serve.

Here's my rationale...

The opposing coach is almost always calling the TO in an effort to "ice" or distract the server from his/her rhythm.

1. If I stop play (replay/reserve/whatever), then immediately beckon the server, the opposing coach gets their wish of distraction without burning a TO.

2. If the R2 makes a ruckus (sit down, too late for TO, etc), the opposing coach gets their wish of distraction without burning a TO.

3. If I allow the TO, the server is distracted / out of rhythm just the same, but at least the opposing coach burns a TO in the process.

I agree that the rule is not very effective (penalty for violation is exactly what the coach originally requested). I believe that both rules and logic dictate this as a reasonable course of action.

[oldsetter]

Go with 1. It is what the casebook prescribes. It is not that much of a distraction and it is the rule.