Notifying the head coach when a team is granted its final time-out

[Jesse James]

I’d have to assume the official scorer gave the official bad info.

Whether the official relays the bad info (1 left), or doesn’t say a word—I’m not certain how that changes the results in this instance.

[JRutledge]

There are a couple of things here that caused this problem. First of all the visiting team scorer should be sitting next to the official scorer. And we have officials that absolutely feel the need to tell coaches of their timeout situation. I have in the past told coaches when told, but I do not feel it is an obligation or something I got out of my way to do. This is an example of why I think we sometimes need to allow the teams to take this role and figure out what they have or do not have.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Up until today I've only heard "stories'" about this, now I have a real situation to point to.

Things Officials Should Probably Not Be Saying In A Game

"Coach, you have one timeout left", is a courtesy often extended by officials to coaches, when, by rule, officials should only be notifying head coaches when their team has been granted its final allowable timeout. If there is any miscommunication, or mistake, involving the table crew reporting remaining timeouts, then the officials, by rule, need to stay out of the conversation. Let the coaches, and table crew, communicate about remaining timeouts, other than when a team has been granted its final allowable timeout, which by rule, is required to be reported to the coach by the officials.

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

There are a couple of things here that caused this problem. First of all the visiting team scorer should be sitting next to the official scorer. And we have officials that absolutely feel the need to tell coaches of their timeout situation. I have in the past told coaches when told, but I do not feel it is an obligation or something I got out of my way to do. This is an example of why I think we sometimes need to allow the teams to take this role and figure out what they have or do not have.

Peace

Drives me nuts when officials tell a coach he has more than zero timeouts remaining. One time a partner (who was the R) told me to go tell the coach he had one left. I did not oblige.

Sometimes partners will tell me at the end of the game: "White has three timeouts left." Congratulations, I could not care less. I normally give a sarcastic thumbs up when this happens.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by SC Official

Drives me nuts when officials tell a coach he has more than zero timeouts remaining. One time a partner (who was the R) told me to go tell the coach he had one left. I did not oblige.

Sometimes partners will tell me at the end of the game: "White has three timeouts left." Congratulations, I could not care less. I normally give a sarcastic thumbs up when this happens.

Well, many times the tables will tell us what they have. I just say "OK" and move on. I just think always telling the bench causes problems like this.

Peace

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

I’d have to assume the official scorer gave the official bad info.

Whether the official relays the bad info (1 left), or doesn’t say a word—I’m not certain how that changes the results in this instance.

It doesn't change the result. It changes who is responsible for the error, taking the liability off of the referees.

[Jesse James]

Originally Posted by LRZ

It doesn't change the result. It changes who is responsible for the error, taking the liability off of the referees.

I don’t see the difference. Scenario 1, coach gripes to assignor, “Your official told us we had 1 timeout left when we didnt.” Scenario 2, “Your official, per rule, failed to inform us when we were out of timeouts.”

Official’s answer to both, “I was given bad info.”

[SC Official]

Originally Posted by Jesse James

I don’t see the difference. Scenario 1, coach gripes to assignor, “Your official told us we had 1 timeout left when we didnt.” Scenario 2, “Your official, per rule, failed to inform us when we were out of timeouts.”

Official’s answer to both, “I was given bad info.”

The difference is the official broke into jail in Scenario 1 by trying to be a "good guy" doing something unnecessary.

[LRZ]

Jesse, the difference is that BC is claiming that it was the referee's fault for telling the BC coach he had one TO left, not the table's or team's scorer's fault for misinforming the referee: "the referee came over to my huddle and told us we had 1 timeout remaining (which we have on video, and will be sending to the ref assigner for NCS)."

[BayStateRef]

I wonder how the official determined there were no time outs left and issued the technical foul -- after (presumably) being told just a minute earlier the team had one. Did the home scorer deliberately lie? Did the official keep count on his own and just messed up?

I completely agree officials should only tell the coach when he is out of time outs, but clearly the official did not do that here. When we get bad information from the scorer and don't award merited free throws, we can correct the scorer's error if caught in time. But here -- the penalty for the scorer's error is particularly harsh.

Of course the team should keep its own book and know the time out situation -- but the same argument can be made about keeping track of team fouls. I would prefer the technical for calling too many time outs should apply only if the coach has been informed by the official that he has no time outs left.

[Kansas Ref]

Invariably during the 4th quarter this convo ensues:
Coach: "hay ref, how many time outs do I have left?"
Kansas ref: "coach please verify your timeout status with the score table". [I say this loud enough within earshot of the score table so they know what to expect]

Also this occurs at the beginning of a granted timeout as I am taking my wait position:
The guy or gal at the score table will demonstrably indicate to me with their hands..."3 time outs a full and a 30 on this side, 2 timeouts , 2 30's on this side". I know these score table personnel [who never wear the required striped shirts] are doing what they feel is their due diligence. But I always wait until their histrionic display is over, then I say "thanks score table, please let me know when there are zero timeouts left".

And invariably this also occurs, my partners who is well-meaning will say "2 timeouts left for red team, 1 for blue team...". To which I always say, "thanks, let me know when there are zero left".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I would prefer the technical for calling too many time outs should apply only if the coach has been informed by the official that he has no time outs left.

I would also prefer this, but that's not the way the rule reads.

[frezer11]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I wonder how the official determined there were no time outs left and issued the technical foul -- after (presumably) being told just a minute earlier the team had one. Did the home scorer deliberately lie? Did the official keep count on his own and just messed up?

I completely agree officials should only tell the coach when he is out of time outs, but clearly the official did not do that here. When we get bad information from the scorer and don't award merited free throws, we can correct the scorer's error if caught in time. But here -- the penalty for the scorer's error is particularly harsh.

Of course the team should keep its own book and know the time out situation -- but the same argument can be made about keeping track of team fouls. I would prefer the technical for calling too many time outs should apply only if the coach has been informed by the official that he has no time outs left.

In the original scenario described by Nevada, the coach called the timeout between free throws by the opponent. In this scenario, I would agree that a technical might be harsh if there indeed was some misinformation spread around. In something like that, where the ball was dead, I would be in favor of immediately ending the timeout upon discovery that the coach had zero, not charging the tech, and play on. (I'm not saying I would do that, that's not the rule, but if a rule change were considered, that would make sense to me.) However, this cannot be a blanket statement the situation occurs. Consider this: Tie ball game, and a team misses a shot, rebounded by the defense with 3 seconds remaining, and the possessing team immediately calls for and is granted a timeout. In this situation, that team has gained a considerable advantage, and a play-on undoubtedly benefits that team. Without the ability to change the rule to a consistent, fair ruling, I would not be in favor of a rule change.

With all that in mind, if a coach requests a timeout during a dead ball, and you know he's out, do you double check with him? "You're out coach, are you sure?" or something similar to that? Live ball you don't really get that luxury, but during a dead ball, I don't see the harm in making sure he isn't making an absent-minded mistake.