Quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
[/B]
|
I disagree.I think that it is incumbent on both officials to recognize the need. I think that you might have missed the point that Tony was trying to make. Tony was saying that it is good procedure for the trail to anticipate a TO request under certain circumstances,take a quick look at the benches after a made FT,and then recognize and grant a properly made request. I agree with him. The lead should also be aware that a TO request might be made from players on the floor under the same circumstances too after the FT,and be ready to recognize and grant that request. [/B][/QUOTE]
Webster's definition - 1 : imposed as a duty : OBLIGATORY
I looked this up so I didn't look stupid. Now that I know I think I was correct the first time. Part of the current problem we have in officiating right now is we want to be incumbent for things we shouldn't be incumbent for and we want to set aside things we should be incumbent for.
If a team goes on a 20-0 run are we looking at the other coach after every made basket because we are incumbent to do so? If a kid is obviously tired and asking for a sub are we looking at the coach to see if he is going to sub? I would like to work a game with anyone who feels like we are "incumbent" for anything a coach might do. First of all a lot of coaches aren't that smart and second I would be interested to see if that person is willing to do all of the "dirty work" that we are really incumbent to do. We have guys working two-person games with kids that are faster and stronger than they were 45 years ago and we are splitting hairs about a coach who didn't get his timeout granted? I don't even remember if anyone mentioned whether or not he even made the request at the right time to get it granted. If he says he did then we know that isn't reliable.