Assistant coach misunderstanding

[bainsey]

MS doubleheader today. One thing I like about these games is the opportunity to teach the kids and coaches a few things about the rules. The kids are still learning, and many of the MS coaches are new at coaching. Quite frankly, the middle schools are lucky to get who they can.

Third quarter, H-1 snares a defensive rebound (I'm the new T), but is struggling with the pressure from V-2 and V-3. From the other end, I can hear H AC (young guy, maybe age 25) screaming for a time-out. I ignore the request, and H-1 drops the ball, which rolls over the end line. H requests a time-out, anyway (from the HC).

Teaching moment. As my partner reports the time-out, I call over the AC.

Me: "The reason why I ignored your time-out request, is that only the head coach can call for that. Assistant coaches don't have that power."
AC: "But he (pointing at my partner, the R) said (in pre-game) we can help out the head coach with time outs!"
Me: "No, sorry, he was talking to your players. The players on the floor can request time outs."
AC: "No! He said..."
R (joining in): "I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. He (pointing to me) is right. I was talking to your players. That's the rule."

Seldom do I see ACs get into the pre-game meeting, and even more seldom do I work with anyone who brings up time-out requests in those meetings, but if you must get into that, make sure you make it clear who can actually make the requests.

[JRutledge]

This is why AC should not be in the pre-game meeting. At least at the HS level that is not allowed for these kinds of very reason.

Peace

[Adam]

Too much talk, IMO. The one time someone listens, it's the wrong person.

[crosscountry55]

Similar situation for me earlier this season but due to a high ten-count in the backcourt. I'm L opposite the table staying connected because all 10 players were in the backcourt. Loud gym, can't hear a verbal TO request. When I figure my partner is getting close to 10, my instinct is to look toward the bench, and when I did, I saw the HC and AC both standing, and the AC was motioning for the timeout. I didn't grant it, and T calls the 10-second violation. HC is pi$$ed! I had to go talk to him and say, "Only you can stand, and all I saw was your assistant calling the TO, so I couldn't confirm the request." As I'm walking away, AC mutters, "I was only calling it because you weren't responding to [the HC]," who apparently had been motioning and yelling before I looked over. Again, loud gym, so without another set of eyes I'm not sure how much more I could have done.

This is why I'm not the biggest fan of allowing HCs to call timeouts.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Adam

Too much talk, IMO. The one time someone listens, it's the wrong person.

"The things I did not say never hurt me." (Calvin Coolidge)

“Never miss a good chance to shut up.” (Will Rogers)

[BryanV21]

I'll tell head coaches that their assistants can let me know whether they want a 30-second or full time out (after the HC actually calls for a TO), should the HC want to hurry up and get into the TO with his team. I should edit what I'm saying so they know that only the HC can actually request a TO, and that the assistants can only let me know which TO the coach wants.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

... a 30-second or full time out ...

This season, one of my goals was to inquire of the head coach if he wanted a "sixty or thirty" second timeout. Since the two types of timeouts came into existence many, many, years ago, I've been asking "full or thirty", as have many of my colleagues. Our interpreter prefers that we ask "sixty or thirty" so I figured that I might as well do it the preferred way.

Several times already this season I have asked "full or sixty".

I guess that you really can't teach an old dog new tricks.