NFHS. Time Out

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

... player request a timeout ... Do we have to signal a player's number?

I just checked. Yes, if it's IAABO mechanics. How about NFHS mechanics?

[frezer11]

Last night I had a game where a player was somewhat trapped on the sideline in front of his own bench, and right as the coach yelled for a timeout, the defender made a dumb play and hacked the kid's arm. So the yelling of "Timeout!" and the whistle for the foul came one after another. Well the bench players from that team heard the timeout request, heard the whistle, and reasonably thought a timeout had been called and granted, and all 8 or so of them started clapping and walking onto the court ready to high 5 their teammates as they came back to the bench for the timeout that as it turns out wasn't actually granted. The opposing coach started clamoring for a technical, but we passed and explained the confusion.

I think we handled it just fine, as the players walking out on the court in no way interfered with game play, though I think there are some out there who might have thrown a technical their way anyways. Thoughts?

[JRutledge]

If there is reasonable confusion, I would not call anything on the bench. If there was unsporting behavior, that is another issue.

But I would have a word with them to allow the play to clearly end and know for sure that a timeout has been granted.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Players never request timeouts around here. I had a player request a timeout last week. When I went to report the timeout to the table couldn't remember whether, or not, to single the player's number to the scorekeeper. I decided to just verbalize the number with no hand signal, so as to not confuse the scorekeeper into adding a foul to the player's total. Around here we signal a coach's request with our fingers in the shape of a "C". Do we have to signal a player's number?

Billy:

I was the official to which the request was made both times. I relayed the player's number to Junior and he asked the HC as to whether he wanted a 30 second or full TO, and then reported the TO to the Scorer and Timer along with the player's number.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I was the official to which the request was made both times. I relayed the player's number to Junior and he asked the HC as to whether he wanted a 30 second or full TO, and then reported the TO to the Scorer and Timer along with the player's number.

In my little corner of Connecticut, we call this "bumping the timeout", and it's strictly verboten. Here, the official that grants the timeout must report the timeout, even if he has to make a long journey to the reporting area to do so, and take the same long journey back to his spot after all the particulars are reported. The urban myth is that, many moons ago, the information somehow got relayed in error between the officials, and the timeout was charged to the wrong team.

IAABO mechanics are a little fuzzy on this. It doesn't say "bumping" is correct, but it doesn't say "bumping" is incorrect. It just states that the "administering" official reports the timeout.

What do NFHS mechanics say about "bumping"?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by Rich

. . . I could hear my eyes rolling in my head.

How does that work, exactly?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

... as to whether he wanted a 30 second or full TO ...

Here (you all know where I'm from), we've been instructed to refer to timeouts only as thirty, or sixty, never full. I've been working on this the past couple of seasons. A few weeks ago I asked a head coach is he wanted "a full, or a sixty". Old habits are hard to break. Old dog, new tricks, yada yada.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

In my little corner of Connecticut, we call this "bumping the timeout", and it's strictly verboten. Here, the official that grants the timeout must report the timeout, even if he has to make a long journey to the reporting area to do so, and take the same long journey back to his spot after all the particulars are reported. The urban myth is that, many moons ago, the information somehow got relayed in error between the officials, and the timeout was charged to the wrong team.

IAABO mechanics are a little fuzzy on this. It doesn't say "bumping" is correct, but it doesn't say "bumping" is incorrect. It just states that the "administering" official reports the timeout.

What do NFHS mechanics say about "bumping"?

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Here (you all know where I'm from), we've been instructed to refer to timeouts only as thirty, or sixty, never full. I've been working on this the past couple of seasons. A few weeks ago I asked a head coach is he wanted "a full, or a sixty". Old habits are hard to break. Old dog, new tricks, yada yada.

Billy:

"Bumping" or "rubber banding" has always been verboten by both NFHS (I am 100% sure) and IAABO (I am pretty sure). But, horrors of horrors, , I have been "bumping" almost my entire career.

When I had my first "player requested" TO last night, the player was trapped in the corner of the court farthest from the Table. I stopped play, stepped clear of the players and announced: White, TO! And then let Mark know that White #5 had made the TO request. I went, with the Ball, to the Throw-in Spot while Junior took care of business at the Table.

By terminology, I do believe that 30 second and 60 second is correct but if I were evaluating someone I wouldn't loose any sleep over it if an official said full in place of 60 seconds. But I like using "full" because I only have to say one syllable, while six-ty sec-onds requires me to have to say FOUR syllables, .



MTD, Sr.