Missed request. Two-man.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by tomegun
Downtown, it is not "incumbent" on either official to recognize the need. See, that is part of our problem, we can anticipate but if you think you should recognize the need then you need to be coaching.

I disagree.I think that it is incumbent on both officials to recognize the need. I think that you might have missed the point that Tony was trying to make. Tony was saying that it is good procedure for the trail to anticipate a TO request under certain circumstances,take a quick look at the benches after a made FT,and then recognize and grant a properly made request. I agree with him. The lead should also be aware that a TO request might be made from players on the floor under the same circumstances too after the FT,and be ready to recognize and grant that request.

[NCAAREF]

The new mechanics are following the mechanics in a three person crew. The calling official goes table side. The reasoning behind it is it gives the coach an opportunity to get an explanation of any "questionable" calls fom the official who called it, thus eliminating the yelling across court etc. In actuality, we had the same concerns about putting the calling official next to the coaches, but in reality the T's given to coaches in these instances went down. It seems that a coach would rather talk to you then have to scream across a court to get your attention. It also puts a little onus on the official to be a professional and have the ability to explain any call he/she makes. Now having said that, we are anxious to see how the HS coaches react to this change. They seem to be a little more "passionate" then College coaches at times. As far as positioning, the lead will now be facing the table if you will. Same coverage as last year just switch sides. Trail being table side actually is pretty easy to hear TO requests, recognize subs, etc.

[DownTownTonyBrown]

Originally posted by NCAAREF
In actuality, we had the same concerns about putting the calling official next to the coaches, but in reality the T's given to coaches in these instances went down. It seems that a coach would rather talk to you then have to scream across a court to get your attention. It also puts a little onus on the official to be a professional and have the ability to explain any call he/she makes. Now having said that, we are anxious to see how the HS coaches react to this change. They seem to be a little more "passionate" then College coaches at times.

I will be anxious to try it out. To have some of our more obnoxiously passionate coaches step up to the official's level of professionalism would be a welcome change. Anything that promotes this change in attitude is surely worth a try.

Coaches definitely are passionate. When I'm done with their game I move on to the next assignment, next coach, next set of fans... the coach however, must go back to the same group of players, parents, school, fans etc. There is reason for their "passion..."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by NCAAREF
Trail being table side actually is pretty easy to hear TO requests, recognize subs, etc.

Nah,I don't agree with that either. That means you now have got your back to the table instead of facing it.That also means that you can't see subs coming to the table,and you can't see TO requests either-without turning your back on the players on the court.Jmo,but you can keep that mechanic in NY.I'd rather take a quick glance over,than have to turn completely around and leave the actions of everybody on the floor to my partner.

Btw,the way you are doing it now is the mechanic that was used when I started out 45 years ago. We always "worked to our right" then,as a general rule of thumb. They changed the FT mechanic because they WANTED us to see subs coming to the table,as well as making sure that the coaches weren't jumping around on and putting on a show behind our backs.

[tomegun]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
[/B]

I disagree.I think that it is incumbent on both officials to recognize the need. I think that you might have missed the point that Tony was trying to make. Tony was saying that it is good procedure for the trail to anticipate a TO request under certain circumstances,take a quick look at the benches after a made FT,and then recognize and grant a properly made request. I agree with him. The lead should also be aware that a TO request might be made from players on the floor under the same circumstances too after the FT,and be ready to recognize and grant that request. [/B][/QUOTE]

Webster's definition - 1 : imposed as a duty : OBLIGATORY

I looked this up so I didn't look stupid. Now that I know I think I was correct the first time. Part of the current problem we have in officiating right now is we want to be incumbent for things we shouldn't be incumbent for and we want to set aside things we should be incumbent for.
If a team goes on a 20-0 run are we looking at the other coach after every made basket because we are incumbent to do so? If a kid is obviously tired and asking for a sub are we looking at the coach to see if he is going to sub? I would like to work a game with anyone who feels like we are "incumbent" for anything a coach might do. First of all a lot of coaches aren't that smart and second I would be interested to see if that person is willing to do all of the "dirty work" that we are really incumbent to do. We have guys working two-person games with kids that are faster and stronger than they were 45 years ago and we are splitting hairs about a coach who didn't get his timeout granted? I don't even remember if anyone mentioned whether or not he even made the request at the right time to get it granted. If he says he did then we know that isn't reliable.

[tomegun]

I'm grateful for this thread at this time of year. There is a fine line between a good official and an upper level official.
Depending on the game worrying about something like this could cause us to miss something that can make or break us.

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Ok, I'm gonna nit-pick. Obviously, you're going to grant the TO if it's called. . . b/c only the official can call a TO. The coach can request it, yadda, yadda.

http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...0&pagenumber=2

[ChuckElias]

Coach, I think that definition is more appropriate for the phrase "call for". In the context of a basketball game, I think "call" = "grant".

I can see your point, tho.