Who should call the timeout.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

This all goes back to why coaches shouldn't be permitted to call, er, request time outs when the ball is live . . . maybe it's just me watching through daddy goggles or the games I'm watching, but it seems to me that referees (I'm watching HS JV) too often grant the coach's "save my player" TOs when the player has already lost control and does not regain control, which I have thought was likely because they had to split attention . . .

This isn't a reason to change a pivotal role coaches play in coaching their team. If a crew messes this up, which I've seen to be extremely rare, it's not a basis for completely changing the game.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Dad

This isn't a reason to change a pivotal role coaches play in coaching their team. If a crew messes this up, which I've seen to be extremely rare, it's not a basis for completely changing the game.

NCAA found a reason to change the rule. And rules are written by coaches, ADs, and conference commissioners.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

NCAA found a reason to change the rule. And rules are written by coaches, ADs, and conference commissioners.

I was referring to the specific reason.

As for the NCAA change, I really think it's a poor change to the game. They did come forward with some decent reasoning, but I'm not a fan. Almost all the issues could've been solved with enforcement of rules and/or better officiating.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Dad

I was referring to the specific reason.

As for the NCAA change, I really think it's a poor change to the game. They did come forward with some decent reasoning, but I'm not a fan. Almost all the issues could've been solved with enforcement of rules and/or better officiating.

For instance??

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by Dad

This isn't a reason to change a pivotal role coaches play in coaching their team. If a crew messes this up, which I've seen to be extremely rare, it's not a basis for completely changing the game.

Coaches were quite able to coach when I played and they had to tell us to call the TO. Indeed, it even meant they had to teach us when we would want time outs, when we should call them on our own, etc. IMO, granting the coaches the right to request time outs during play was one of the dumbest "innovations" ever added to the game (I'd add the possession arrow, too, except for middle school and below . . .) and increases the view that the game is about the coaches. The coach requesting the TO directly isn't about coaching, its about the coach wanting to be involved in play. Really, really stupid. Coaches should be coaching -- that is TEACHING -- the players what to do, not doing it for them.

I didn't say the scenario presented is the reason coaches shouldn't be allowed to request time outs, but it is an example of distracting referees by making them divert attention off the court to accommodate the coach. Eliminating the stupid rule change is not "completely changing the game," it is returning the game to where it belongs.

YMMV.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Coaches were quite able to coach when I played and they had to tell us to call the TO. Indeed, it even meant they had to teach us when we would want time outs, when we should call them on our own, etc. IMO, granting the coaches the right to request time outs during play was one of the dumbest "innovations" ever added to the game (I'd add the possession arrow, too, except for middle school and below . . .) and increases the view that the game is about the coaches. The coach requesting the TO directly isn't about coaching, its about the coach wanting to be involved in play. Really, really stupid. Coaches should be coaching -- that is TEACHING -- the players what to do, not doing it for them.

I didn't say the scenario presented is the reason coaches shouldn't be allowed to request time outs, but it is an example of distracting referees by making them divert attention off the court to accommodate the coach. Eliminating the stupid rule change is not "completely changing the game," it is returning the game to where it belongs.

YMMV.

I can respect this stance. There are some nuances of the game I really enjoy and coaches calling TOs is one of them.

Your mileage may vary? What?

[Rich]

And I fall on the side of liking coaches calling timeouts. I officiated in both eras -- and when they let the coach call timeouts, it made things easier overall for me.

Back then we heard a coach yelling and then had to find a player on the floor asking for one. The change just eliminated the middle man.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

Coaches were quite able to coach when I played and they had to tell us to call the TO. Indeed, it even meant they had to teach us when we would want time outs, when we should call them on our own, etc. ... granting the coaches the right to request time outs during play was one of the dumbest "innovations" ever added to the game (I'd add the possession arrow, too ...

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: Why are you posting under so cal lurker's username?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dad

This isn't a reason to change a pivotal role coaches play in coaching their team. If a crew messes this up, which I've seen to be extremely rare, it's not a basis for completely changing the game.

It's not a drastic change to the game. it's not as if we're asking for the FIBA rule. And crews mess this up very rarely. Normally, a coach is crying because we don't acknowledge a TO request made while we HAVE to be watching the action instead of him.

Make the players call it during live balls, and all this goes away. Hell, if the coaches would teach players to mirror their requests, this would go away as well.

[Dad]

Originally Posted by Adam

It's not a drastic change to the game. it's not as if we're asking for the FIBA rule. And crews mess this up very rarely. Normally, a coach is crying because we don't acknowledge a TO request made while we HAVE to be watching the action instead of him.

Make the players call it during live balls, and all this goes away. Hell, if the coaches would teach players to mirror their requests, this would go away as well.

I don't think this makes anything go away. You'll still have quick thinking players yelling they were calling time outs. Or the coach yelling TO and then yelling at you for not seeing/hearing A3 trying to get a TO.

I just can't see any net gain from making a change. All I see are headaches while teams adapt.

[MD Longhorn]

3 pages. Wow. Figured this one would be a one-response topic. "Whichever referee sees it."

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

3 pages. Wow. Figured this one would be a one-response topic. "Whichever referee sees it."

The real best answer.

Originally Posted by Adam

It's semantics. Nothing new around here, though.

Ain't that the truth.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by AremRed

The real best answer.



Ain't that the truth.

Whoever sees or hears it is the obvious answer to the simple question. The situational question is who should be most aware in this scenario.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Dad

I don't think this makes anything go away. You'll still have quick thinking players yelling they were calling time outs. Or the coach yelling TO and then yelling at you for not seeing/hearing A3 trying to get a TO.

I don't recall that happening under the prior rule.

I do like, in theory at least, the NCAAM rule -- for those who work under that code, how has it been working?

[MIReferee]

Thanks for all the replies. It sparked a major discussion between myself and the other officials involved. It seems to have done the same here. The whole thing started with you know you should have got that timeout before the foul. I was like really I didn't know there was an area for granting a time out