Timeout request after request for serve
 

Case book 11.2.1 sit A states that requests after signal to serve are denied and a Replay (should be reserve) is granted. I does not specify that there is a penalty.

This action delays the game, but an UD would be a timeout in this case, which is what the coach wants in one scenario.

I find it odd NFHS rules do not penalize this, but a mere request (not recognized) for a 3rd timeout is a point/loss of rally. I saw a state semifinal end this way....not pretty.


And as far as that goes. Looking at all the things that REQUIRE the issue of UD's. I assume that just tons of them are being issued. So, looking at the list of of actions in rule 9-9 that "require" a UD penalty....how many UD's are you administering per match?

I thought once the arm went up for beckon the sub zone closed and then any entries after that would go straight to unnecessary delay

Rule 9.9 lists the UD's.....maybe it is somewhere else. I have not seen it yet.

Which would mean you would stop play and administer a timeout if the team had one?
:eek:

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?

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.

I have't issued very many UD's . Maybe 2 or 3 in the last 2 years. And that was for really bad libero exchanges after the coach was told nicely to make sure your players exchange properly. Our supervisor is huge on preventative officiating.

Fixed answer in previous post.

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

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.

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.

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.

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