Coach requests a timeout

[BryanV21]

Stopping play to check on a CE is different than granting a timeout, then not charging it if the challenge is correct.

If a team is out of timeouts you don't grant them one.

The problem is the whole "time out" thing. Leave that out and we're fine.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[BryanV21]

I'm not saying I'm right, but where is this "coaches challenge" type thing you're talking about?

If a coach wants to check on a rule that's fine, but that's not the same as a time out being charged based on whether he was right or not.

10.1.7 only refers to a tech being charged for requesting an excess timeout. Nothing about it relating to a CE or other rule question by a coach.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[ODog]

Bryan, forget the CE aspect of things for a second.

You keep saying things like, "If a team is out of timeouts, don't grant them one."

Where are you coming up with that? It has no basis.

As for how to handle the OP, BadNewsRef explained it perfectly.

[johnny d]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I'm not saying I'm right, but where is this "coaches challenge" type thing you're talking about?

If a coach wants to check on a rule that's fine, but that's not the same as a time out being charged based on whether he was right or not.

10.1.7 only refers to a tech being charged for requesting an excess timeout. Nothing about it relating to a CE or other rule question by a coach.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

It is a good thing you aren't saying you are right, because you are not right. Perhaps you should spend a little more time in the rule book before making such bold statements.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by johnny d

It is a good thing you aren't saying you are right, because you are not right. Perhaps you should spend a little more time in the rule book before making such bold statements.

It would be great if some people could just answer a question without being an ass about it.

You make coming here SO much better.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[BigT]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

It would be great if some people could just answer a question without being an ass about it.

You make coming here SO much better.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I learned about Verbal Judo here and my eyes practice it all the time.

Reminds me of wreck ball. The players are so bored with their opponent they turn on me for entertainment.

Here people are so bored they turn on their own kind for entertainment. You have to practice dodging these people and enjoy the people who help you be a better ref. Really practicing Verbal Judo here makes you a better referee. Dont let them mess with you. Just picture a monkey male basketball player and calming T his sorry ass.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I'm not saying I'm right, but where is this "coaches challenge" type thing you're talking about?

If a coach wants to check on a rule that's fine, but that's not the same as a time out being charged based on whether he was right or not.

10.1.7 only refers to a tech being charged for requesting an excess timeout. Nothing about it relating to a CE or other rule question by a coach.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Have you ever read the whole CE section of the rule book?

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

I'm not saying I'm right, but where is this "coaches challenge" type thing you're talking about?

If a coach wants to check on a rule that's fine, but that's not the same as a time out being charged based on whether he was right or not.

10.1.7 only refers to a tech being charged for requesting an excess timeout. Nothing about it relating to a CE or other rule question by a coach.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

look at 5-8-4 and 5-11-4 through six or so i think. the coach is allowed to make an "appeal" to the official at table. other coach allowed to be present.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BigCat

look at 5-8-4 and 5-11-4 through six or so i think. the coach is allowed to make an "appeal" to the official at table. other coach allowed to be present.

And thank you. The part I was missing is the exception listed in 5.11.4

And for the record, I'm not all knowing. I'm fully aware that I will make mistakes. If some people around here could be a little less abrasive that would be great. This isn't reddit or the comment section of YouTube.

Am I wrong that we, as colleagues, should show more support for one another, rather than act like this is a contest on who is knowledgeable and who isn't?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

And thank you. The part I was missing is the exception listed in 5.11.4

And for the record, I'm not all knowing. I'm fully aware that I will make mistakes. If some people around here could be a little less abrasive that would be great. This isn't reddit or the comment section of YouTube.

Am I wrong that we, as colleagues, should show more support for one another, rather than act like this is a contest on who is knowledgeable and who isn't?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Support for one another also includes not telling a whole bunch of veteran officials they are wrong about a rule.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Support also includes not telling a whole bunch of veteran officials they are wrong about a rule you have never looked up.

I never said anyone was wrong. I wrongly answered a question, misunderstood some replies (without getting personal) , then admitted I may be wrong. But I never came out and said anything like you're "dead wrong" or "you obviously didn't read the whole rule", etc.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

And thank you. The part I was missing is the exception listed in 5.11.4

I don't see a 5.11.4. I do see a 5-11-4. And, yes, it makes a difference. And, it's the FED notation -- see the Foreword to the case book.

Finally, while I might (or might not) have found a different way to express it, I agree with the sentiment expressed by johnny and badnewsref in this thread.

[BryanV21]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I don't see a 5.11.4. I do see a 5-11-4. And, yes, it makes a difference. And, it's the FED notation -- see the Foreword to the case book.

Finally, while I might (or might not) have found a different way to express it, I agree with the sentiment expressed by johnny and badnewsref in this thread.

OK. I was the ass. My apologies. I do feel some people can be abrasive, but apparently this time it was me in the wrong.

And I always forget which is dashes and which is periods.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[eyezen]

Originally Posted by BryanV21

And thank you. The part I was missing is the exception listed in 5.11.4

And for the record, I'm not all knowing. I'm fully aware that I will make mistakes. If some people around here could be a little less abrasive that would be great. This isn't reddit or the comment section of YouTube.

Am I wrong that we, as colleagues, should show more support for one another, rather than act like this is a contest on who is knowledgeable and who isn't?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Are your feelings hurt? Do you need a safe space?

[TimTaylor]

And just for the record, 5-11-6 states "Time-outs in excess of the allotted number may be requested and shall be granted during regulation playing time or any extra period at the expense of a technical foul for each, as in 10-7-1." (underlining is mine....)

Bottom line, as Camron Rust posted earlier, is the coach can have as many extra time-outs as they want - at the expense of a technical foul for each......and by rule the official doesn't have a choice - they shall grant them.