Timeout request after request for serve

[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.