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

Raymond

Camron Rust wrote
Are you, for the purposes of the T, deviating from NFHS mechanics to get away from the coach or does your state go opposite normally?

If following the NFHS mechanics, the calling official will always be tableside (3-person, or on any foul with FTs in 2-person).

I go away from the table, except for occasional AAU coaches who think they are intimidating someone. Then I'll stand tableside so I can get in a few choice words. 😀

Raymond

Adam wrote
I think Rich's point is that as soon as the T is called, he'd prefer to head straight for the FT administration. Do we really need to stand in the coach's pocket to make sure it all gets sorted while the coach is still fuming?

I think individual personalities and composure-ability come into play also. Also realize, that when I'm at the table, the coach should still be about 15-20 feet away if he is still in the coaching box. I can conduct business without re-engaging the coach. The problem is that coaches seem to think that a technical call makes it alright to leave the coaching box in order to seek out a conversation. That's when a partner should be running interference and keeping the coach in his box.

Camron Rust

Rich wrote
I don't know of a single official who doesn't go opposite after whacking a coach. If you do, then I guess I know of one.

Oh, I'm not saying officials don't do it. I will and I know many that will....for good reason. But I don't always do it. It depends on the situation. Sometimes the coach immediately settles down, knowing they deserved it, and I just stay. But if they're still tense I move away just to prevent problems.

Camron Rust

SC Official wrote
The NFHS manual definitely does not "always" have the calling official going tableside in 3-man.

And for this situation, there's even a blurb about "avoiding a confrontational situation" or something to that effect.

True....not always, there is one exception but this isn't that one case.

And I agree that it is good to deviate when prudent, but it doesn't need to be automatic.

MD Longhorn

deecee wrote
“Our section has one of the toughest ejection policies in the state,” Schniepp said. “Three games is for the use of profanity. Six games is for something physical.”

All he did was chase him down to the other side of the court and since the official kept moving there was no contact, and he only used the word fiddlesticks so I think 1 game is more than enough. In fact the official has been suspended for 2 months for awful "game management".

I think it's clear what he is saying and I don't see profanity. He appears to say, "How do you make that call" about 7 times in a row.

BigT

BadNewsRef wrote
I think individual personalities and composure-ability come into play also. Also realize, that when I'm at the table, the coach should still be about 15-20 feet away if he is still in the coaching box. I can conduct business without re-engaging the coach. The problem is that coaches seem to think that a technical call makes it alright to leave the coaching box in order to seek out a conversation. That's when a partner should be running interference and keeping the coach in his box.

BNR could you simple turn to the coach and say Coach please head to your box and I will be there shortly. Gives him a chance to go back and calm down or escalate?

Raymond

BigT wrote
BNR could you simple turn to the coach and say Coach please head to your box and I will be there shortly. Gives him a chance to go back and calm down or escalate?

If he is out of his box after getting a T from me, I will not be "asking" him to get back in the coaching box. Nor will I go over to discuss anything with him at that point. Hopefully, one of my partners is monitoring his behavior and location and addressing accordingly.

BillyMac

frezer11 wrote
#1 should be getting a T too, for leaving the court for an unauthorized reason.

Maybe he's going to the little boys room? Is that an authorized reason?

A player shall not: Leave the playing court for an unauthorized reason to demonstrate resentment, disgust or intimidation

Am I correct to assume that this is only for "players", not for substitutes, or bench personnel, or other team members?

Also, this refers to leaving the playing court, not leaving the gymnasium? Right?

BigT

BadNewsRef wrote
If he is out of his box after getting a T from me, I will not be "asking" him to get back in the coaching box. Nor will I go over to discuss anything with him at that point. Hopefully, one of my partners is monitoring his behavior and location and addressing accordingly.

I meant this situation where a kid calls a time out and they get a technical that is not at the coach.

rbruno

Had a varsity HS game years ago when the table told me Team A had 1 timeout left. I informed the assistant of Team A they had 1 left. Later in the fourth quarter Team A called a timeout, I went to the Table and reported and the table informed me that Team A had no more timeouts. I now become the villain of course. Taught me a lesson to never tell either team how many timeouts they have left except when they have none. I would assume the officials knew that that team had no more timeouts. Can you ignore the request (Google Paul Silas Celtics triple overtime game in 1976), and the aforementioned Chris Webber game) knowing that the team has no timeouts and it would result in a technical foul? Just sayin...

BillyMac

I certainly hope that one of the officials told the coach that he had used up all of his timeouts.

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.

Whenever I do that, the coach almost immediately tells his players not to request a timeout.

Adam

rbruno wrote
Had a varsity HS game years ago when the table told me Team A had 1 timeout left. I informed the assistant of Team A they had 1 left. Later in the fourth quarter Team A called a timeout, I went to the Table and reported and the table informed me that Team A had no more timeouts. I now become the villain of course. Taught me a lesson to never tell either team how many timeouts they have left except when they have none. I would assume the officials knew that that team had no more timeouts. Can you ignore the request (Google Paul Silas Celtics triple overtime game in 1976), and the aforementioned Chris Webber game) knowing that the team has no timeouts and it would result in a technical foul? Just sayin...

No, you cannot ignore the request. There's specific instruction not to do so.

You'll note that no one except other officials ever really questions whether this should be called. No one even knows who the officials were in that Webber game. You ignore it, and the other coach is going to have a right to go ballistic. I'd much rather explain that #3 requested a timeout than explain why I ignored what was right in front of me.

JRutledge

BillyMac wrote
I certainly hope that one of the officials told the coach that he had used up all of his timeouts.

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.

Whenever I do that, the coach almost immediately tells his players not to request a timeout.

And what difference was that going to make? If the coaches do not know their timeout situation, that is on them. Whether we tell them or not does not change that. And they can go to the table like they do with everything else they want to know. Heck it gets on my nerves when the table tells me when both teams have 2 or more timeouts. It is irrelevant to me as it should be to everyone.

Peace

Amesman

JRutledge wrote
Heck it gets on my nerves when the table tells me when both teams have 2 or more timeouts. It is irrelevant to me as it should be to everyone.

This. Along with what rbruno illustrated.

Tell them when they've got none left ... otherwise, don't say anything.

Adam

Until we get to zero, the only thing I'm curious about is if they still have a choice on timeout length. I'll try to track when they're out of each so I don't have to bother asking the coach.

JRutledge

Amesman wrote
This. Along with what rbruno illustrated.

Tell them when they've got none left ... otherwise, don't say anything.

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. Most of the time the coaches will say when you ask for "What kind of timeout coach...." they often say, "I only have a full (or 30) left." So to me they know what their timeout situation is most of the time anyway.

Peace

bucky

JRutledge wrote
And they can go to the table like they do with everything else they want to know.
Peace

Everything else? They can only go to table to seek info on correctable error situations. Anything else, like checking on number of TO's, is a technical foul.

By case anyway.....This falls directly under the "If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?" category.

JRutledge

bucky wrote
Everything else? They can only go to table to seek info on correctable error situations. Anything else, like checking on number of TO's, is a technical foul.

By case anyway.....This falls directly under the "If some rules are never enforced, then why do they exist?" category.

Yes, they can go to the table, which often in my experience is literally right next to the benches, along with people from both teams sharing that information. This also does not require anyone to physically walk to the table or even get up to have information shared with them. It is only a T if you leave the coaching box, which is pure semantics as benches are usually so close to the table they could reach out and touch the table without violating any rule. Coaches or assistants all the time ask, "How many fouls does he have?" And the table talks back to them with the information they asked for.

Also not sure what rules you suggest are never enforced. The rule for timeouts requires the scorer to inform the officials that they are out of timeouts. I have had this discussion here before, often that is clearly not necessary as they already know they are out of timeouts as the conversation between the officials and the table on this matter is not a secret. Assistants also know they are out of timeouts and they make it clear they are out of timeouts or they ask on their own. Heck I have had opponents tell me that the other team is out of timeouts. This is not rocket science here, people count timeouts just like they count other things. We really make stuff like this too complicated. At least that is in my experience.

Peace

Camron Rust

rbruno wrote
Can you ignore the request ... knowing that the team has no timeouts and it would result in a technical foul? Just sayin...

Do your ignore contact fouls too just because they are dumb fouls, especially when the other team is in the bonus?

Do you ignore when a player steps OOB even though they had plenty of room to stay inbounds but were not paying attention?

bucky

Camron Rust wrote
Do your ignore contact fouls too just because they are dumb fouls, especially when the other team is in the bonus?

Do you ignore when a player steps OOB even though they had plenty of room to stay inbounds but were not paying attention?

I get your point however, there are times when ignoring rules is prescribed. Specific situations and intentions may require it.

Right or wrong, I can easily see where many officials would have ignored this alleged TO request.

« Previous Page Next Page »