Girls V.; <u>two-man</u>; 1:52 4th; Red Shootin' 2nd of 1-1; I'm Lead table side. Red up by 4.
Ball goes in, helter-skelter under the bucket and Red is pressing hard.
Gold pushes ball across half-court and throws it away at Gold bench. Red ball!

As I'm turning to go opposite Lead, Red coach says, "Mick, I wanted a time out after she made that. You gotta give me that!"

I said, "Sorry, Coach, but I was kinda busy watchin' other stuff."

Aside from the fact that if we see the request we honor it, which official do you hold reponsible to see that request?

<I> Subsequently, three times, after the missed request, Red Coach had a guard go to Trail to ask for a time-out, prior to the 2nd shot "if the second goes in". We each said okay as she stood beside us. </I>

mick

I think the trail has to get this. He/she is the one that is looking nearest that direction during the free throw, and probably ought to glance tableward for a possible substitute on the made free throw anyway. However, with the shooter, two players on the far lane, and at least three players behind the arc, his/her plate is pretty full already. Add in a quick inbounds and a press to help out on, and it only gets worse. :(

Either L or T, doesn't matter, maybe depends on where the action is. Seems your coach friend eventually figured out how this stuff works.

Neither! It is the responsibility of the coach and players to get the attention of the officials when they want a TO. It seems that this coach figured out how to do that quite well.

Concerning this same subject.....what do you say to the coach/player who says "if the shot is made I want a timeout". Do you require them to request it again "after" the shot is made...or do you grant it without them asking again after the shot is made??

Be Aware
 

I have to disagree with Nevada. An official should be aware of what might take place near the end of a close game regarding which team might want to call a TO, etc. The trail in this instance should have glanced toward the respective benches looking for a possible TO request by either coach in the event that the FT is good. Many times as trail in this situation when I look toward the bench, I have had a coach non verbally indicate to me that if the FT is good he or she wants a TO. It's all part of what I call preventive officiating. Be prepared for the situation and prevent any problems whenever possible.

Re: Be Aware
 

In this particluar instance, you're probably right. But, in general, Nevada is right, I think. If the action is right in front of the official, his/her responsibility is the play. In this case, it doesn't sound like there was heavy pressure right in front of the Trail, so s/he probably should've taken a peek at the bench.

But my own opinion is that an official's first responsibility is to the play on the court. Granting a coach's request for TO is a courtesy, when conditions allow it.

Coaches cause this problem.
 

This is all on the coach to get the attention of the ref. The ref might not see or hear them in a very loud and packed gym. Yes, the officials should be looking, but we are not going to be staring at the bench to try to figure out if they are calling for a timeout or not. Coaches have lost all common sense and stopped having their players request timeouts, especially when our attention is mainly go to be where the players are. The need to be like football, the coaches cannot timeout. Or at the very least, say during a live ball or with the clock running they cannot call a timeout.

Peace

I agree with NCAAREF. As a part of Game Management skills, an official must know what is going on around him/her and be able to anticipate these calls. It should become 2nd nature for an official to know how close the score is, time remaining, etc., and know when to glance at the bench. I do not agree that a time out is a courtesy, but is a right. You have an obligation to grant a time out if it is called.

Granted, I am more used to 3 person crews, and it is somewhat easier to watch for these types of things, but these are the types of things that should be addressed in a pre-game.

I tell them that I'll certainly be alert for it, but they need to make some indication that they still want it at the time.

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.

Now to my real point. All I meant to say in using the word "courtesy" is that looking at the coach is always, always a second priority to looking at the players on the floor.

Maybe we just have a difference of opinion, but I don't think the coach has a "right" to having an official watching the bench at all times for a TO signal. If there intense action in front of the closest official, and nobody can hear a verbal request, then you know what? You don't get the TO b/c I'm not taking my eyes off this play. Hopefully, your player is smart enough to run to me with the request.

IF I can check the bench without sacrificing court coverage, then I will check the bench. And let's face it, most of the time at least one of the three officials can sneak a peek ;)

But there will be times -- especially in 2-whistle mechanics -- where it will not be possible. In those situations, the coach is basically in the same boat as s/he was 5 or 6 years ago when coaches couldn't request TOs at all.

As always, just my opinion.

I'm going to disagree with you on this one Chuck. The sitch was a TO requested after a made FT. More than likely the coach was standing up already giving Mick a T before the ball was shot. More than likely one of the 2 guys had an opportunity after the ball went in to glance over to table side. Someone probably should have realized a TO might be coming and glanced over. Not much else going on normaly at this time.

Dan, from one of my previous posts in this thread:
I think we agree. In this case, somebody should've been able to sneak a peek. My only point in the last post was that we don't always owe the coach that peek if it means taking our eyes off play.

[Edited by ChuckElias on Sep 17th, 2003 at 01:35 PM]

I'll buy that....and you are right, if a coach really wants that TO he'll make damn sure that he is SEEN and HEARD.

And there is no doubt that the 3 person crew has an avantage here.

I can tell you that I have a voice that can easily be heard, I use my loud voice for coaching and requesting timeouts (not for yelling at refs), and I visually and loudly call for timeouts in obvious timeout situations. I have, nevertheless, been ignored by officials for as long as 5-10 seconds, even in relatively quiet gyms. I have never been ignored by any official that I thought had a handle on the game, even when the gym was loud. This problem generally occurs with oficials who get tunnel vision and are not actively thinking about game situations.

I do consider it to be an element of game management to anticipate the situations where a coach might want a TO and to have your ears tuned in for it (while keeping eyes on court). You hear the request, you look over quickly, you see me, you award it. That simple.

I know that there is a lot to do and I don't want your job, beieve me. And I am not aout to suggest that this comes easily. But I believe it is something that you should work on in terms of awareness, not just say if I don't hear it, oh well, that's the coach's problem.

More than likely one of the 2 guys had an opportunity after the ball went in to glance over to table side. Someone probably should have realized a TO might be coming and glanced over. Not much else going on normaly at this time. [/B][/QUOTE]Not much else going on? From mick's post- "Ball goes in.Helter skelter under the basket and Red is pressing hard". From that description,everything is bang-bang immediately after the FT goes through.In a 2man,if I'm the trail,I'm still in the (new) backcourt trying to help my partner out. No way in the world that I'm now gonna turn my back on the play to verify a timeout request.Granted,I might,and probably shoulda,taken a look at the coach before the FT went up,but after it's gone and this mayhem starts,I ain't looking at him until the play calms down. JMHO.

I can say this to you. I am not going to call a timeout with my back to you. It just is not going to happen. For one, it might not be you (the coach) calling a timeout. Secondly, when I call a timeout, I am making sure the proper team has the ball or the ball is not at the disposal of the other team. It is the coaches problem if he or she is not using common sense when trying to call timeouts. Even the NF warns officials of calling timeouts with our backs turned. And I go by the procedure that Ed Hightower told us at a IHSA Rules Meeting about 7 years ago when this rule was put in to:

<b>1. Hear
2. Recognize
3. Then Grant.</b>

First to hear your request, recognize the who is calling it and the status of the ball, then grant the timeout if the proper situation is present. With a coach yelling for a timeout, it might take a few seconds to recognize who is yelling. That is why the coaches should use some common sense and have their players call for the timeout as well. The official's eyes are on the court, it is very easy to tell if they are calling for a timeout, instead of turning around and take my eyes off the court to see who might be yelling for a timeout.

Peace

Did I see you say Tunnel vision?
 

Hawks Coach,
I really do enjoy loud, active coaches that are working and encouraging their teams. And, I believe, I am on that court at the pleasure of you, your team and your athletic director. I am attentive to game situations.

However, while I am officiating for such a loud, active coach, and after <U>one quarter</U> of snapping my head around for every <B>loud, long 'I'-sound</B>, I hit the mute button. I remain tuned-in, but I have quit listening.
When that happens, I am much more likely to award a visual request for time-out.
mick

Not much else going on? From mick's post- "Ball goes in.Helter skelter under the basket and Red is pressing hard". From that description,everything is bang-bang immediately after the FT goes through.In a 2man,if I'm the trail,I'm still in the (new) backcourt trying to help my partner out. No way in the world that I'm now gonna turn my back on the play to verify a timeout request.Granted,I might,and probably shoulda,taken a look at the coach before the FT went up,but after it's gone and this mayhem starts,I ain't looking at him until the play calms down. JMHO. [/B][/QUOTE]

Coulda taken a look before and as the ball is going up.
Coulda taken a look as the ball is going thru the net.
Coulda taken a look as the D sets up for their press.

Only takes a second to turn your head (not your back) as you're stepping down to referee the action.

We agree that once the mahem starts for real the coach is sh!t out of luck, but if the guys on the foor were prepared for a TO they could have caught it.

Re: Did I see you say Tunnel vision?
 

I hear ya. Any coach that has a play called "side out" is asking to have his TO requests taken a little less seriously. :)

Preventive is the Key
 

What I was saying was that before the FT even goes up, while the lead has the ball before administering the FT, I would as trail glance at the coach. More often then not in a close end of the game situation he or she would be indicating to me, often by hand gestures that if the FT is good he or she wants a TO. I never meant to imply that I would look at them while play is going on.

"Worst rule among equals"
 

Letting the coaches call time out is a terrible rule. There is often no way to be sure who is calling for a TO without looking away from the game. If a coach doesn't get an official's attention, s/he can get a player to relay the request, especially during a foul shot.

Coulda taken a look before and as the ball is going up.
Coulda taken a look as the ball is going thru the net.
Coulda taken a look as the D sets up for their press.

Only takes a second to turn your head (not your back) as you're stepping down to referee the action.

We agree that once the mahem starts for real the coach is sh!t out of luck, but if the guys on the foor were prepared for a TO they could have caught it. [/B][/QUOTE]Mick's original post says that the coach said that he wanted a TO AFTER the FT was made. To me,that says that he didn't start asking until after the ball went through,which is when the ma(y)hem started.That's the way I read mick's post,anyway,-which means that it didn't matter if you looked before the FT or after the ball went through the net-because the coach hadn't asked yet.Maybe Mick can clarify just when he thought the coach first started asking for the TO.If he started asking before the ma(y)hem,then I agree with you.If he started asking after the ma(y)hem started,then I don't agree with you. Fair enough?

Mick's original post says that the coach said that he wanted a TO AFTER the FT was made. To me,that says that he didn't start asking until after the ball went through,which is when the ma(y)hem started.That's the way I read mick's post,anyway,-which means that it didn't matter if you looked before the FT or after the ball went through the net-because the coach hadn't asked yet.Maybe Mick can clarify just when he thought the coach first started asking for the TO.If he started asking before the ma(y)hem,then I agree with you.If he started asking after the ma(y)hem started,then I don't agree with you. Fair enough? [/B][/QUOTE]

Well sh!t JR, if Mick looked over there before, during, and just after the FT went in and the coach was sitting on his hands we have a different discussion - the coach was wrong. But I imagine the coach was standing up calmly giving Mick a T expecting that someone on the floor saw it. Or maybe the coach told little Sally to get a TO on the made FT but little Sally had a brain cramp & forgot but somehow that exact explanation didn't get back to the coach....

btw, looks like you might need a new keyboard, somehow these things () keep popping up around your "y".

Last year at our districts we had a very intense double overtime game. Gym was packed and very loud. I thought the officials did a great job in controlling the game and granting the timeout requests. One of the things that they did was towards the end of the game and the overtimes, if there was a foul, after the official reported it, he would would quickly shoot over to the coach that was trailing in the game and ask, "are you going to want a timeout?" Thought it was good game management, and again, they didn't miss a TO request

Please don't do this.

"Coach,if you want a TO,make sure that you're in a position where we can see or hear you,or make sure that one of your players requests it".

Agree with Dan.Never give a TO out unless you get a proper request.The rules do NOT allow for any other procedure. I'll look but I won't ask.I will use the above,if a coach tells me that he wants a TO after a FT,etc. He's gotta ask WHEN he wants it.

Uh, ...geez, JR!
What part of missed the request do you want? ;)

The request had to have come after the second free-throw went through. He was yellin', but I wasn't hearin' or lookin' his way.
...Did not request anything before I administered the ball.
Nuthin' was going on at the benches or table.

Besides how could he yell to me on the baeline, or my partner across the floor, that he wanted a "...TO, if..."
That's something that we want to keep very quiet.

Otherwise, we could have a coach requesting a TO, if the opposing team scores 5 times in a row, or if his team turns the ball over three times in succession.

I think the Trail is standing, facing the benches and is there to observe and glance. My good partner undoubtedly was queued on the rebounding action by the time the coach initiated his request.

To make matters more challenging, the gym had the added parameters of being dark and having a restraining line.

mick

What part of missed the request do you want?

The request had to have come after the second free-throw went through. He was yellin', but I wasn't hearin' or lookin' his way.
...Did not request anything before I administered the ball.
Nuthin' was going on at the benches or table.
Otherwise, we could have a coach requesting a TO, if the opposing team scores 5 times in a row, or if his team turns the ball over three times in succession.

My good partner undoubtedly was queued on the rebounding action by the time the coach initiated his request.

To make matters more challenging, the gym had the added parameters of being dark and having a restraining line.

[/B][/QUOTE]Good enough for me. The coach screwed up.You guys did your jobs-focusing on the press and the in bounds after the made FT(i.e. ma(y)hem):D. You didn't miss the request,IMO. Coach didn't request properly,is all.

Good enough for me. The coach screwed up.You guys did your jobs-focusing on the press and the in bounds after the made FT(i.e. ma(y)hem):D. You didn't miss the request,IMO. Coach didn't request properly,is all. [/B][/QUOTE]

This might help:

http://www.buy.com/retail/computers/...ry.asp?loc=433

This might help:

http://www.buy.com/retail/computers/...ry.asp?loc=433 [/B][/QUOTE]
y?

YEA!! I'm not the dense one this time!!!

y not?
d'ja git it?
attaboy.
You stay try, too.

Wanna bet?:D

Let me help you out here,Chuckie. Slappy,who is usually an immaculate and accurate speller,left the "y" out of "mahem"(sic) in one of his posts.Ol' JR,being kind of an antisocial a$$hole(as well as also being a general pain in the a$$),has since tried to repeatedly point that fact out to him.I would dare say that Slappy is well aware of what I've been doing,because-being Slappy-he has been doing his damndest to return the favor.

Now,don't forget to come in out of the rain!:D

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 19th, 2003 at 12:53 AM]

I love it when I can spark 3 pages on this board and it's not even bball season! I purposely worded that post to incite members and elicit some responses.
Please don't misunderstand my position, since I am all for game awareness. Knowing the score, the clock, and situations in the game when TOs are likely to be called is great and I have been told by quite a few vets that I am excellent at it.
However, if a random TO request is missed at somepoint in the middle of the game because the officials' attention is directed to action on the court, I believe that responsibility falls on the team and its coach for failing to make their request recognized.

We must be careful for what we wish.

I got the "y" thing. I'm not quite as dumb as I look. But I figured that you didn't get the relevance of Danno's link. That's why I was taking a little pleasure in your question.

October issue of Referee Magazine arrived yesterday. A direct quote from Barry Mano, the Publisher of Referee magazine---"Sports officials are the worst critics of other sports officials. It is a damned shame, but there it is. There is so much of that kind of criticism around, there are times you feel ashamed to be part of the profession".

There it is? Why? B/c some writer says it? First of all, I'm not really sure that's true. Yes, officials often critique minute details that non-officials never notice. And yes, officials are notorious for using rating systems for biased reasons. But does that make us the "worst critics of other sports officials"? Hardly. Fans and coaches engage in personal attacks and virtiol that are sometimes truly despicable. I agree that officials scrutinize each call and are willing to tell another official that s/he blew the call; but we don't do that any more than fans, coaches, or media members. Every time a survey is done asking why officials stop officiating, the answers are about the fans and coaches. I don't ever remember the #1 reason in such a poll being, "My brother officials were overly critical of me!"

Second of all, even if the above is true, why did you post it in this thread? :confused:

I think we need the mix.
We do not improve while we are continually being told that we "did fine".
mick

Exactly. Got me confused,too.

But I figured that you didn't get the relevance of Danno's link. That's why I was taking a little pleasure in your question. [/B][/QUOTE]Uh,Stevie Wonder coulda seen what Slappy was trying to do.

Hence my glee at your apparent (but feigned) confusion.

okay, here is how the conversation went.

Offical- "coach, it is pretty loud out here, are you going to want a time out after the free throws?"

Me- "yes I am going to want one if the seoond shot goes in."

Official - "Okay I'll be sure to look for your signal because I won't be able to hera you."


both coaches still had to signal for the timeout, the asking was to make sure so they would look over, because neither would be able to hear.

Hey,at least I know what JFF means!

And I ain't telling ya!

Tell what I'm thinking JR - the next time MTD uses "where" in place of "wear" I'll just keep my mouth shut. (Yeah, sure I will.)

Anyway, thanks for the compliment on my speling, I shoor due apreshiate it. Like I all ways tell my kidz: go in the kitchen and grab me another beer...wait that's not it...here it is - gud learnin iz its own re-award.

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch sutdy at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a total mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig, huh?

Uh,Stevie Wonder coulda seen what Slappy was trying to do. [/B][/QUOTE]Let's get Stevie to weigh in on this. Surely he frequents this board too. After all, so many coaches claims he could do a better job than us! :D

Cuhck,

Paelse tkae yuor micdetaions!!

Times are Changing
 

Well it will be a lot easier here in NY this year to resolve this discussion as the calling official on a shooting foul will now be table side. New HS mechanics starting to emulate three whistle mechanics.

Re: Times are Changing
 

This is for a 2-whistle game? Trail calls a shooting foul and stays at Trail? No switch? Is this all of New York state?

NYS Change
 

Not sure about the Federation, but HS Girls which follow NCAA is going to this across the state and so are JUCCO women. You're right, if trail calls a shooting foul he/she will either walk & talk over to the table and remain there or just turn and report the foul if already there. No switch. Just got back from our state meeting this weekend and now I have to go back and teach all of our old dogs a new trick.

Re: NYS Change
 

Hey NCAA guy, by saying this is a NY Girls and women's juco mechanic are you saying this is the new cca 2 person mechanic for ncaa women? Apply to men also? Anyway, I'm not getting what you're saying - does this aply to fouls that reverse the ball only (offensive fouls)? I tend to think so from what you have here.

Re: Re: NYS Change
 

Doesn't sound like it to me Dan. He specifically says "shooting foul". NCAA doesn't shoot FTs on offensive fouls anymore, right? Sounds like he's saying that the calling official always goes to the trail, and that they're gonna do this in HS!

Re: Re: Re: NYS Change
 

Yep, good catch. I guess we'll just have to wait.

Re: Re: Re: NYS Change
 

Right -- but he also says "goes table side."

Isn't the trail in two-person opposite the table on shooting fouls?

New Mechanics
 

Well let me try and clear up some of the confusion I created. When I referenced "shooting" foul I was trying to use it in terms of the original example, but you're right. This year in NCAA Womens, which is what we follow in NY for HS Girls ball, the new two person mechanics is for the calling official to go table side. If you're shooting FT's, then you will be table side as trail, no longer opposite. For the most times, whenever you call a foul, regardless of whether you're shooting FT's, the calling official will end up table side this year. Now I'm not going to go into all the mechanics and exceptions to the new mechanics as there are some as you can imagine. What they are trying to accomplish is to get the calling official near the benches ala three person mechanics. Not sure if the CCA two person manual is going to show this as I haven't seen one as of yet.

As far as the original topic of this thread goes, I don't think they did anything wrong. Sometimes it is hard to grant a timeout in this situation. The trail has a minimum of 4 players to watch, the shooter and 3 people behind the line. I say at least 3 people depending on pre-game and how many players are in lane spaces. With 6 players along the lane if the done by the book doesn't the lead have 3 players to watch compared to the trail's seven? Three of these seven could be all the way at the other end of the court doing all kinds of things to each other. The trail also chops the clock for a missed free throw. The trail should also make sure the clock starts if the free throw does not go in because the trail could have action directly in front of him. During a press the trail also has to find a happy medium of help and watching players in what is to become the new front court. Taking all of this into account and mentally putting myself in this position, the coach better REQUEST the timeout because there is max of about 6 seconds (two to get the ball and four to throw it in) until it is too late for him. Six seconds is a short time when doing all of the above.
Why would you have to turn your back to grant the timeout when the trail should be facing the table? If the answer is you are talking about the lead then I don't buy that because the lead will definatly have their hands full.
Why can't you tell the coaches voice from someone else's voice after 31+ minutes. This is a small detail but something that can get you over the hump.
Is you positioning such that you can't see something out of the corner of your eye? The same sideline the coach is behind is your responsibility! I think the right position would allow you to see the coach motioning for something.
I still think the onus is on the coach for this timeout. We, as officials can only be mechanically sound for the court action and attempt to catch the request.

I've officiating a two-person game and stayed table side for shooting fouls. In all situations I can think of it should be said that the calling official will go table side ONLY on shooting fouls. All other situations would be a switch and since there are only two people you go where your partner was and your partner goes to the designated spot to take the ball out.

I'm not sure but you might be lost
 

The time out request is generally requested by the team that is shooting - not the one taking the ball out after the shot. So the shooting team has only until the other team secures the ball - generally less than 2 seconds and probably less than 1.

All other arguments aside, the official (in general the Trail, who is facing the table) must recognize the situation and expect a request. To glance at the bench following a made shot is nothing. It is very simple and requires very little effort. It occurs automatically as you leave the rebounding action and turn to head down the court into the Lead position. In my opinion, it is obviously incumbent upon the Trail official to recognize the need and it is incumbent upon the coach to make the visual request. Otherwise, missed opportunity.

Question of NCAAdude. So, if in 2-man mechanics, the Trail is going to stand with his back to the benches (within earshot of the shooting team's coach) is the Lead going to also move across the key?

Seems to be contrary positioning. Now Trail cannot see the benches or scorekeeper (should be watching the rebounding action). Now Trail is next to the "HOT" area raising potential for angry coach interaction rather than requiring the coach to yell across the court if he wants to be stupid. If Lead moves to the other side, (which I assume he must to maintain the boxing-in principle) he is now looking through all the players and rebounding action to see benches and scorekeeper area and partner.

What is the advantage is this change???? Perhaps I'm lost too? ;)

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.

As far as an official being in the "hot spot" goes, the changes have occured to bring the calling official closer to the coaches so there isn't any yelling across the court. We have to have the courage to make calls and communicate with coaches. Communication is a must!

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.

DownTown
 

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.

In the HOT zone
 

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..."

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.

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.

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.

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.