The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Timeout? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/10485-timeout.html)

mick Mon Oct 20, 2003 08:30pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Quote:

Originally posted by ChuckElias
Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref
Quote:

Originally posted by me, Chuck Elias
That's my role as Mr. Spelling Guy. Or am I Mr. Grammar Guy? :)
Or Mr. Annoying Guy?
Oooooh, I'm sorry, no. We were looking for "Mr. Typoo". Yes, Mr. Typoo. But thank you for playing. JR, tell him what he's won!

The grand prize is a week in the U.P. with mick.

Second prize is two weeks in the U.P. with mick!

<font size = 1/3 color = red>Ouch !! That'll leave a marque!</font>

Jurassic Referee Mon Oct 20, 2003 08:45pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Hawks Coach
Quote:

Originally posted by Indy_Ref
Just like talking to a coach...often times it's not what you say, but how you say it.
Or from my perspective, like a coach talking to a ref - sometimes it's not the idea you are trying to convey, but the words you use to convey it!

Or the body language! :D

ChuckElias Tue Oct 21, 2003 05:46am

Quote:

Originally posted by mick
<font size = 1/3 color = red>Ouch !! That'll leave a marque!</font>
:D

tomegun Tue Oct 21, 2003 06:26am

OK. I can see where my original post could come across wrong. That is my fault. But, I look at several posts where people have some good questions and/or comments and it turns into a group or clique jumping on them. I'm not even talking about me and my post. If someone says I should have used different words in my post I can accept that.
Someone mentioned the things you say to a coach. This is similar, if someone says something to you it can't always be followed with a smart comment. Sometimes we have to just admit we kicked it. I can do that in a game and on this forum too.

I will lighten up now. If you only knew, you would probably want me to be more serious.

oatmealqueen Tue Oct 21, 2003 09:44pm

Quote:

Originally posted by tomegun
OK. I can see where my original post could come across wrong. That is my fault. But, I look at several posts where people have some good questions and/or comments and it turns into a group or clique jumping on them.


Tom,
Like it was stated before.. most of the "jumping on" is just good natured ribbing.
Most take serious time to answer, and are dedicated to help give opinions/answers to any and all questions.
Sometimes the board keeps things stirred up a little to keep a lively discussion going, and to bring out all different points of view.
That's how we all learn, isn't it?



Nevadaref Thu Oct 23, 2003 06:37am

Quote:

Originally posted by tomegun
I know those involved don't know me but I'm a good referee and I'm very passionate about doing this the right way.
I have met you and I can testify to the board that this guy is a quality official who cares.
BTW, the reason for the successive TO prohibition is to prevent a coach from burning all of his TOs in an attempt to ice a free-thrower who was fouled while attempting a buzzer beater. In the appropriate situation, a coach might figure, what the heck, if he makes the free throw we lose the game, and I can't take the TOs home with me, so I might as well use them. So we would end up standing around for five minutes blowing a horn. Just silly.

mick Thu Oct 23, 2003 08:33am

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref

I have met you and I can testify to the board that this guy is a quality official who cares.


But you didn't meet him in Nevada, didja? ;)

JeffTheRef Thu Oct 23, 2003 07:28pm

For detail's sake, it's 5-12-3
 
I take it you all take it that 'successive' can mean one team calling a time out after it has taken one or the opponents calling it . . . it doesn't say it doesn't mean this . . . so . . .

Camron Rust Thu Oct 23, 2003 07:39pm

Re: For detail's sake, it's 5-12-3
 
Quote:

Originally posted by JeffTheRef
I take it you all take it that 'successive' can mean one team calling a time out after it has taken one or the opponents calling it . . . it doesn't say it doesn't mean this . . . so . . .
Yes, 'successive' means one time out right after another no matter who's requesting it. Only 1 allowed after time expires in the 4th Q or OT.

tomegun Fri Oct 24, 2003 06:29am

Quote:

Originally posted by mick
Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref

I have met you and I can testify to the board that this guy is a quality official who cares.


But you didn't meet him in Nevada, didja? ;)

Yes, we met at state in Reno.

tomegun Tue Oct 28, 2003 07:43am

My stance on this rule was changed by the members of this board and I need some help now. The rule says a timeout cannot be called after the 4th quarter or any extra period. I was told that this means during any extra period instead of after any extra period. The word after should be used with extra period to me. After the extra period is the only thing that really passes the common sense test.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not challenging the board over this. I agree, but I need something concrete to present to others. I know there is something similar in the rule book but I just can't think of it. I did send an email to NFHS and I tried to make it right down the middle so they didn't know which way I was leaning. I would appreciate it if someone can give me something from someplace in writing or a "it is the same as" reference. Thanks.

Indy_Ref Tue Oct 28, 2003 09:47am

Quote:

Originally posted by tomegun
My stance on this rule was changed by the members of this board and I need some help now. The rule says a timeout cannot be called after the 4th quarter or any extra period. I was told that this means during any extra period instead of after any extra period. The word after should be used with extra period to me. After the extra period is the only thing that really passes the common sense test.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not challenging the board over this. I agree, but I need something concrete to present to others. I know there is something similar in the rule book but I just can't think of it. I did send an email to NFHS and I tried to make it right down the middle so they didn't know which way I was leaning. I would appreciate it if someone can give me something from someplace in writing or a "it is the same as" reference. Thanks.

Read 5.12.3 and 5.12.4 in this year's casebook. It may or may not be more clear than the rulebook...even though some of the same wording is used.

tomegun Tue Oct 28, 2003 11:05am

I do not have a current case book. I know what you are thinking. Is there someplace I can get it on line?

mick Tue Oct 28, 2003 11:17am

Quote:

Originally posted by tomegun
I do not have a current case book. I know what you are thinking. Is there someplace I can get it on line?
tomegun,
E-mail me.
I'll scan and e-mail the page to you.

mick

[email protected]

Nevadaref Thu Oct 30, 2003 06:07am

Quote:

Originally posted by tomegun
I agree, but I need something concrete to present to others.
These others wouldn't be the same guys who are making you sit through their rookie rules class!?!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:30am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1