The Official Forum - 1.9 Sec left in Playoff game TO Granted with none left leads to Coach Ejection (Video

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - 1.9 Sec left in Playoff game TO Granted with none left leads to Coach Ejection (Video (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/102338-1-9-sec-left-playoff-game-granted-none-left-leads-coach-ejection-video.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1001691)

How in the heck would an official have any idea who is informed once you tell a coach or tell and assistant their timeout situation?

Like JRutledge, I don't care one bit if #3 knew, or didn't know, if his team had any timeouts remaining. All I care about is that the officials (assuming they were informed by the table) informed one of the coaches of #3's team.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1001653)

... inform the head coach, either during, or immediately after, the timeout, or, failing to get the attention of the head coach without interrupting his huddle, informing the assistant coach.

I don't, nor do I know of anyone else, who informs the entire team, even if the rule seems to (stupidly, it says a team and its coach, not a team or its coach) imply that. Everybody here in my local board just makes sure to tell the head coach, or if he's busy in the huddle, an assistant coach. As far as we're concerned, that fulfills the intent and purpose of the rule. If that procedure is followed (assuming that the table informs the official), we at least know with 100% reliability that an adult on the team is informed, and that we, as officials, are not kicking a rule. If the assistant coach doesn't inform the head coach, and/or if the head coach doesn't inform his players, then that responsibility is on the team's adult leaders, not on the officials. And, like JRutledge stated in an earlier post, even when players are informed by the coach not to request any timeouts, they are just kids, and they often do stupid things, like request a timeout that they don't have (see Chris Webber video).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1001691)

First of all, no one here brought up anything about this but you. That was not the issue of this thread or even the accusation of the team. The issue was whether or not the player requested a timeout.

At the time I made my first post regarding this rule, the main issue was, as JRutledge stated, whether or not the player requested a timeout, but also, at that time, Forum members had no idea if the coach was informed, or not informed.

Post #72 https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1001543

After U99's post came out that described, in detail, the entire incident, we became aware that the only issue was if a player had actually requested a timeout. The only reason that I have continued to post on this rule is in response to JRutledge's posts regarding this rule.

Post #99 https://forum.officiating.com/basket...ml#post1001626

Quote:

Originally Posted by U99 (Post 1001626)

The scorer notifies FCHS head coach that is his last timeout and he acknowledges in front of the official.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1001691)

Yes, that is true, but that is not what appears to have happened here.

Absolutely 100% correct. If something like that happened, I'm sure that it would have been posted by U99 in his detailed report, after all, he was there. After U99's post, all of my posts responding to JRutledge have been about hypothetical situations, like an official not informing the coach, and the head coach chasing the official all over the court yelling, "How can you charge us with a technical foul, you never informed us that we were out of timeouts?" (even if I, as the official, screwed up, I would still charge the excess timeout technical foul, two wrongs don't make a right).

Bottom line, this was a good opportunity to remind Forum members, including officials, coaches, players, and fans, what the "inform" rule actual requires officials to do under such circumstances:

The scorer shall: Record the time-out information charged to each team (who and
when) and notify a team and its coach, through an official, whenever that team is
granted its final allotted charged time-out.

As well as: The scorer shall: Signal the nearer official each time a team is granted a time-out in
excess of the allotted number.

On the other hand, I couldn't let this incomplete interpretation (below) of the rule stand without mentioning rest of the rule:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1001561)

The rule for timeouts requires the scorer to inform the officials that they are out of timeouts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge (Post 1001556)

I am only telling them if I am told they are out. If the table never says a thing, I am not saying a word.

And I am doing exactly the same. 100% agreement on this. (Although if I have reason to believe that a team has used all of its alloted timeouts, and I'm not informed, I may ask the table to double check.)

Again I couldn't care less or care less either way. If the teams do not know their timeout situation like other book situations, shame on them. Timeouts they call and verify after every granted is one them. Because if something is wrong, then they better figure that out before they are listed as out. So this entire rule that seems to be the focus is irrelevant. Just like it is irrelevant if the scorers sits together during the game and that rarely happens. It might help things if they do, but when they don't I am not going to go crazy if they don't.

Peace

Billy, can I borrow your belt for a few minutes, please?

Rich Corinthian Leather ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1001701)

Billy, can I borrow your belt for a few minutes, please?

Sorry, it's at the cleaners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich (Post 1001701)

Billy, can I borrow your belt for a few minutes, please?

Why? Do you wish to give Rut a spanking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1001731)

Why? Do you wish to give Rut a spanking?

Nah, it is so it will coordinate with his Byron collar.

I can't, for the life of me, figure out what gets threads locked here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref (Post 1001731)

Why? Do you wish to give Rut a spanking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe (Post 1001803)

I can't, for the life of me, figure out what gets threads locked here.

Why should it be locked? People like to have a little fun. As long as it doesn't go to far, it is usually tolerated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 1001577)

Asked and answered.

You just made me miss Law and Order.

Quote:

Originally Posted by U99 (Post 1001626)

Let me answer a few questions:

The "new rule" nobody between lane lines. Game administration was asked to keep that area free for the game. The main entry way is there as well as the snack bar and bathrooms. They stopped people there while the play was occurring on that end. Each opportunity they had, they moved people in the gym and away from that area, as we also did many times.

Benches. Due to staircases and the layout of the gym the benches have always been moved to where you see them. Not the best scenario, but the home team management places the benches (1-13-1). This was the last game in this gym as the new one is almost finished.

The play:

The foul at 0:01.9 was a hard foul, but a basketball play. Nothing intentional or flagrant. (Double whistle) The trainer for white ran onto the court. When #5 went to the line to shoot and realized he was staying into the court, one official went to St. Augustine coach to let him know he needed to call a timeout to keep his player in the game or to sub him (3-2-6). He called a time out.

First free throw made. Foothills Christian (black) calls their final timeout. The scorer notifies FCHS head coach that is his last timeout and he acknowledges in front of the official.

Second free Throw missed and rebounded by FCHS #5. Prior to securing the rebound, but knowing that #5 will get it as he is all alone, #3 turns to the new trail and begins yelling "time-out" many times progressively louder and by signaling visually multiple times for a time-out. The request is granted. In addition as FCHS was walking to their bench you can see that #1 is also signaling time-out.

As the calling official goes to report the timeout, signaling toward the black team's bench (it was very loud in the gym) the head coach for FCHS gets in the way of the official and doesn't allow him to get to report. (The scorers table is two rows up into the stands, so all officials had to be a little closer to the sideline when reporting during loud moments). As the coach is screaming "no he didn't, no he didn't" the official tells the coach to return to the bench and let the crew get together as the game is not over. The coach ignores the request and continues on to the official repeating the same thing. The official repeats to the coach that the game is NOT over and to please allow us to figure it (technical foul, resumption of play, time remaining, etc) out. He continues coming at the official finally snapping his head and yelling "bulls**t". (So much for the newspaper and CIF report of no profanity) The calling official now gives an unsporting technical foul to the head coach of FCHS. The coach turns away and goes to his bench. As the official is (finally) reporting the excessive time out and the unsporting technical, FCHS head coach returns to scream at the calling official, "How can you call that!" over and over. The calling official now walks toward the semi-circle at half court but feeling the coach follow him, decides to turn around for his own safety. The official backs up to the other sideline and (finally) with no place left to go, looks over the shoulder of the coach to his partner who gives him his second (and disqualifying) technical foul and ejects him.
Time remaining was 1.9 at the initial final free Throw. The crew decided that they would take off 0:00.4 resulting in 0:01.5 showing on the clock.

FCHS #1 leaving the gym. During an intermission or a time-out all players are considered bench personnel (4-34-2). The requirement of not leaving the playing court or bench area is for an unauthorized reason. (10-6-6). An assistant coach retrieved #1 and he returned to the game as a player following the time-out. The crew was not going to specifically ask the reason why he left, as there may have been a legal reason.

I hope all questions were answered here. I will not comment or reply on anything regarding crew chemistry, comments of partners not doing their job or anything else negative. The crew talked about many things in the post game. In addition, two state evaluators were in the gym, and the post game as well as the association president and many other officials.
Thank you.

Thanks for coming here and telling us the rest of the story!

Quote:

Originally Posted by U99 (Post 1001626)

I hope all questions were answered here. I will not comment or reply on anything regarding crew chemistry, comments of partners not doing their job or anything else negative. The crew talked about many things in the post game. In addition, two state evaluators were in the gym, and the post game as well as the association president and many other officials.
Thank you.

And I'm guessing not one of those folks tried to tell the crew they should have ignored the requested TO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 1001876)

And I'm guessing not one of those folks tried to tell the crew they should have ignored the requested TO.

No they did not. In fact they said they could see him calling a timeout from where they were sitting. They said if we ignored that, we would not (1) be continuing on in the state tournament (2) be nominated for playoffs next year. They also said that if this play is good enough to be called in a division one National Final, then it is good enough to be called in a high school game. This was not a one time verbal request that we had to verify. It was visual AND verbal, multiple times, with a player making eye contact and moving toward an official. I find it interesting that every news report (SD UT, SB Nation, USA Today, NBC 7, ESPN, SD Informer) has blamed the player. Not one word had been printed or reported about the official being wrong. The only ones saying the crew should have ignored it are referees, only a very few at that, and I wonder about their experience level and play calling abilities. AND none of those officials were in the gym, let alone the game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by U99 (Post 1001883)

I find it interesting that every news report (SD UT, SB Nation, USA Today, NBC 7, ESPN, SD Informer) has blamed the player..

What about the coach? If *two* players are signalling TO, it sounds to me like the coach utterly failed in communicating with his players on what they were supposed to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by so cal lurker (Post 1001888)

What about the coach? If *two* players are signalling TO, it sounds to me like the coach utterly failed in communicating with his players on what they were supposed to do.

I'm guessing the second player was just mirroring his teammate

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam (Post 1001920)

I'm guessing the second player was just mirroring his teammate

Sure. But would he mirror the teammate if he knew that the teammate had just f%^$%ed up and was going to cost the team the game? No. He would only mirror if he thought the TO was what they wanted. To me, that is pretty strong evidence that the coach failed in communicating to the players on the court that they had no time outs and had to get the rebound and heave it (or, on a make, throw a pass to someone who could shoot quickly). If the coach had class (and no, nothing in the video gives us reason to think that . . .), his post game comment would be to apologize to the team for not doing a better job of making sure all the players understood the situation and to take responsibility for what happened and take it off the kid.