Last year's statement was not clear in the case where the ball being out of bounds and the touching
of a player were simultaneous (a player who was out of bounds touched or caught the ball). The
new wording is definite.

Play: Al tries and the try is not successful. Al continues over the end line and is out of bounds
when BI recovers the rebound and bats or passes the ball against Al who is still out of bounds.
Ruling: The ball should be awarded to BI. Under such circumstances, it is theoretically possible for
B to take advantage of the rule. In actual practice, it is doubtful whether such action will occur.

Play: Al has the ball out of bounds at the side. He attempts to throw it in and BI bats the pass
back against Al who is still legitimately out of bounds. Ruling: Ball should be awarded to BI. This
is another case where it is theoretically. possible for BI to take advantage of the rule. However, Al
has the whole court into which to throw the ball and he also has plenty of chance to avoid being hit
by the batted ball if he is alert.

I1-1-Note. The first paragraph of this note is new. Since any player may request a time-out, it

_ is not uncommon for poorly informed players to ask at a time when they may not legally make such

Plage

a request. Under ordinary circumstances, the Official will ignore such request but if he erroneously
grants it, it is a technical foul as well as a charged time-out and the ball should immediately be taken
fo the free throw line. It is assumed that it is not essential that the full one-minute time-out be
allowed, since there is a considerable period of rest during the free throw for technical foul.

Play: While Al is dribbling, BI asks for a time-out and the Official blows his whistle. B has
already taken their last legal time-out. Ruling: This is a technical foul for delay of game and also
an excess time-out. Two free throws should be awarded to Team A. ©

Comment: It might be argued that this is a double penalty for the same act. However, if ‘such a
penalty were not provided, it would result in lack of any penalty for taking the time-out at the wrong
time. Illustration: Suppose BI asks for an excess time-out while his team is in possession. The penalty
is a free throw for an excess time-out. Extend this situation to the one where the excess time-out is
itlegally requested while Al is in control. If only one free throw were awarded, the illegal request
would go unpunished. Theoretically there are two infractions. The first for taking too many time-outs
and the second for breaking up a play by the opponent. This is the basis on which the two free
throws are awarded.

11-2. In the last question there are two slight changes. An omission in the answer makes it clear
that a thirty second substitution will cancel a charged time-out even if the time-out was taken in the
interval following a field goal. Also in the question the phrase “after the watch is stopped" has
been added.

In past years there was considerable laxity in connection with the method of counting the thirty
seconds. In some groups, a substitute was allowed thirty seconds from the time he reported to the
Scorer. In other groups, he was allowed thirty seconds from the time he entered the court. It seems
obvious that if a time-out is to be cancelled by a substitution, the thirty seconds should be counted
from the time the Timer stops his watch. In actual practice, this will make it almost impossible for a
team to cancel a time-out unless the time-out is actually taken for the purpose of making a substitu-
tion and unless substitution slips are being used to reduce the amount of waste time.

Comment: It might be claimed that teams may take advantage of this privilege. Here are some
illustrations: j
|. Following a field goal, Al asks for a time-out in order to prevent a fast break by the opponent.
The coach rushes in a substitute who reports to the Official within thirty seconds and thus can-
cels the charged time-out.

2. After the ball has been placed at the disposal of free thrower, Al, A2 notices that BI is in a
sleeper position without any guard in his vicinity. A substitute is rushed in in time to cancel
the charged time-out.

3. Near the end of a game, Al holds the ball for eight seconds in his back court and then asks for

ace Cantal a time-out. Play is resumed by awarding the ball to Al out of bounds and he is permitted ten
ball sx beck4 More seconds to advance the ball to the front court. This action is repeated several times. In
cout Lor order to prevent excess time-outs a substitute is rushed in on each occasion.

14 Second These. possible abuses of the rule are largely theoretical, especially since the thirty seconds is to
‘cai ao PS ‘art when the watch is stopped. In the last illustration, there would always be the possibility of a

held ball before the request for a time-out could be transmitted, especially if the defensive team: is
alert. If they are merely holding a zone defense under such circumstances, they probably ought to lose.

11-5. There are two slight changes in this section. In the next to the last line, the phrase "or
awarded" has been added to take care of the situation where a goal might be awarded on the last
play of a period.: In the last paragraph, the word "practice" replaces "‘practice shooting’. Some
teams interpreted the old rule to mean that they might practice passing (probably to annoy the
opponent).

13-7. This section has been reworded to cover situations which were only ambiguously covered by
questions and answers. If there is a foul by one team and between the time of that foul and the time
the watch is next started, there is a foul by the other team. Since the fouls are not simultaneous, this
is not a double foul. However, as far as resumption of play after the last free throw is concerned, the
administration is the same as for a double foul. The reason these can not be classed as a double foul