Thirty Second Timeout ...

[BillyMac]

BillyMac's Question: Are substitutes and coaches allowed to stand during a thirty second timeout?

5-11-3: A single 30-second charged time-out shall not exceed 30 seconds and players shall remain standing within the time-out area. A warning signal for teams to prepare to resume play is sounded with 15 seconds remaining. No oncourt entertainment should occur during this time.

It appears that 5-11-3 only puts restrictions on the five current players (they must stand). The rule doesn't place any restrictions on the coaches and substitutes, in fact, they are not even mentioned in the rule. 10-4-4 states that bench personnel shall not stand at the team bench while the clock is running or is stopped, and must remain seated, except during a charged time-out, as in 5-11. I believe that substitutes and coaches have the option, by rule, to stand or sit down, and that only the five players must stand.

Mr. Webb's Email Answer:

A commendation for your interest and for sharing it in question form.

Your understanding of the rule is accurate. The bench personnel made stand, they are part of the team. Additionally, the Coach's sharing may be meaningful to them and conceivably of importance to their potential participation as a player.

You have also cited appropriate Rules References.

NOTE: Simply FYI. Very often accurate rules book terminology has an affect on communications and understanding. You question includes a reference to "substitutes." There are no "substitutes" located on the bench. All individuals located on the bench are "bench personnel." Specifically, the "bench personnel" who in team uniform are "team members."

Best wishes And Happy New Year!

For IAABO,

Peter Webb

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I recall an interpretation a few years ago on this topic.

Thanks Nevadaref. You are certainly the king of the Forum archives!

2001-02 Rule Book, Comments on the 2001-02 Rules Revisions, page 72: Requirement To Stand During A Thirty-Second Time-Out (5-12-5): "Additional discussion reflected concerns about whether or not substitutes should be permitted to join the conference with coach(es) and players. Because of instructions that may be given, the interpretation has been that team substitutes should be able to participate in the time-out meeting."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks, but I was hoping for something with more pizazz.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

I really need a caseplay, interpretation, or a test question, to be convincing.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

2001-02 Rule Book, Comments on the 2001-02 Rules Revisions, page 72: Requirement To Stand During A Thirty-Second Time-Out (5-12-5): "Additional discussion reflected concerns about whether or not substitutes should be permitted to join the conference with coach(es) and players. Because of instructions that may be given, the interpretation has been that team substitutes should be able to participate in the time-out meeting."

Thanks guys. The citation above (rediscovered by Nevadaref) finally convinced the local powers that be that substitutes, and coaches, are allowed to stand during a thirty second timeout. Thanks for the help.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks guys. The citation above (rediscovered by Nevadaref) finally convinced the local powers that be that substitutes, and coaches, are allowed to stand during a thirty second timeout. Thanks for the help.

You have multiple personalities.

[j51969]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Thanks Nevadaref. I thought so. It was interpreted a different way at our local monthly meeting this morning (I know, Sunday morning, not cool). I will get it straightened out.

Basketball must be easy to officiate in your neck of the woods. This seems like a wierd nit to pick even if it wasn't allowed. Much less bring about that much discussion at a local meeting that people were at odds on how to rule on it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by j51969

Basketball must be easy to officiate in your neck of the woods. This seems like a weird nit to pick even if it wasn't allowed. Much less bring about that much discussion at a local meeting that people were at odds on how to rule on it.

Not really a discussion. Question was brought up. It was answered by the powers that be that, by rule, only five could stand, but we would make an exception locally and allow the entire team to stand. More than 300 members sat there and said nothing while I said to myself "What the ...?". I waited to get home to double check my interpretation, emailed my constructive criticism to the powers that be, was dismissed, asked for a double check, was dismissed again, until I emailed the 2001-02 Rule Book Comments, after which I was thanked for straightening it out.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Not really a discussion. Question was brought up. It was answered by the powers that be that, by rule, only five could stand, but we would make an exception locally and allow the entire team to stand. More than 300 members sat there and said nothing while I said to myself "What the ...?". I waited to get home to double check my interpretation, emailed my constructive criticism to the powers that be, was dismissed, asked for a double check, was dismissed again, until I emailed the 2001-02 Rule Book Comments, after which I was thanked for straightening it out.

This was a strange one Billy. The rules on this are really clear. If your "powers that be" needed that old comment to be convinced they probably shouldn't be "the powers that be."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BigCat

This was a strange one Billy. The rules on this are really clear. If your "powers that be" needed that old comment to be convinced they probably shouldn't be "the powers that be."

The real problem is if these are the same people who were in charge back in 2006 when BillyMac first brought this issue before the forum. It was answered then, so these folks shouldn't need the same question answered again.

[BigCat]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The real problem is if these are the same people who were in charge back in 2006 when BillyMac first brought this issue before the forum. It was answered then, so these folks shouldn't need the same question answered again.

Make a note of it. It will likely come up again in 2026.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BigCat

This was a strange one Billy.

Same meeting.

Jump ball stolen on the way up? Stealing team loses the ball and the arrow.

Player hanging on rim? Only legal if there is a player underneath.

I took care of business on both.

We've gotten too big. Merged with another association a few years ago. Training committees are overworked. These guys work their butts off, but it's an uphill battle.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Same meeting.

Jump ball stolen on the way up? Stealing team loses the ball and the arrow.

Player hanging on rim? Only legal if there is a player underneath.

I took care of business on both.

We've gotten too big. Merged with another association a few years ago. Training committees are overworked. These guys work their butts off, but it's an uphill battle.

I believe that I've detected the problem.
It seems that all of these rulings are from the dark ages.
Is your training committee is from 1985? You need to get some new blood in that group. Or at least someone who has a current NFHS rules book.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Is your training committee is from 1985? You need to get some new blood in that group.

Overworked, and spread too thin.

Membership (325 plus) has very short attention spans and are always anxious to get the meetings over. Followup questions are discouraged, not by the training committees, but by the membership. That's why I didn't ask my thirty second timeout question at the meeting. My question would not be appreciated by the membership. Most guys just want to leave and get home to watch football. It hasn't always been that way. I blame it on the fact that we got too big, too fast.

Executive committee, secretary/treasurer, interpreters, and assigner, all do outstanding jobs. The membership can be underwhelming. Some are more interested in texting, and checking their email, than in paying close attention to the presentations.

[ODog]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The membership can be underwhelming. Some are more interested in texting, and checking their email, than in paying close attention to the presentations.

Same with your neighbors to the north. I'd add to the list: Talking openly throughout.

[packersowner]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Overworked, and spread too thin.

Membership (325 plus) has very short attention spans and are always anxious to get the meetings over. Followup questions are discouraged, not by the training committees, but by the membership. That's why I didn't ask my thirty second timeout question at the meeting. My question would not be appreciated by the membership. Most guys just want to leave and get home to watch football. It hasn't always been that way. I blame it on the fact that we got too big, too fast.

Executive committee, secretary/treasurer, interpreters, and assigner, all do outstanding jobs. The membership can be underwhelming. Some are more interested in texting, and checking their email, than in paying close attention to the presentations.

One of my gripes about our association is that we often employ the people who are the eldest, seemingly the most knowledgeable, or the most well liked people into positions of rule/mechanic interpretations. I think about this every summer during our officials camp, the guys who are the clinicians are sometimes the worst teachers. So we end up with officials who really need constructive help, but too often the people giving them the help don't know how to effectively teach. Inevitably, both walk away frustrated.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by packersowner

One of my gripes about our association is that we often employ the people who are the eldest, seemingly the most knowledgeable, or the most well liked people into positions of rule/mechanic interpretations.

Not here. Our guy's real good, some of his assistants, not so much.