Excessive time-out granted, but...

[JRutledge]

#1 if they are reliable to talk to.

#3 if I have time or remember. Likely talking to partners so that might not ultimately happen depending on the conversation with partners.

Again I think we worry about this too much. If you know and have time tell them. But they have 80 coaches, someone should know their timeout situation or knows how to find out. This is not an issue with good and experienced coaching staffs.

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

NOT 2.

Originally Posted by Raymond

1 AND 3. Not mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

#1 if they are reliable to talk to. #3 if I have time or remember. Likely talking to partners so that might not ultimately happen depending on the conversation with partners.

Looks like we've got some consensus here.

Nobody, including me, is going to dig one's way deep into the huddle and distract the head coach from setting up a play with his players, just to satisfy the notification rule.

And yet, I've seen officials give this a try like they're digging for gold.

Notify an assistant coach early, as soon as possible (of course, by rule, this isn't kosher).

Possibly later, if one has the time, after fulfilling one's other duties, followup and confirm the notification with the head coach at the end of the timeout.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Again I think we worry about this too much.

Here in my little corner of Connecticut, timeout procedures have been obsessively taught by four different interpreters over forty years as if something really really "bad" happened back in ancient times.

1) Never "bump" the timeout from the granting official to a partner closer to the table. Never. Ever. Under any circumstances. Doesn't matter how far away one is from the reporting area.

2) Only tell a head coach when they have used their final allotted timeout. Never tell a coach how many timeouts they have left, except for the final allotted timeout. Never. Ever. Under any circumstances. Doesn't matter that one wants to be courteous to the head coach to build rapport and gain his vote for the state tournament.

Something tells me that one, or both, of these two guidelines were't followed sometime in the very distant past with disastrous results, which is why our local trainers have been so obsessive about teaching these guidelines over the years.

[JRutledge]

We are have been told here, that when we have the horn warning, stay there with the teams until they come out. So if we are standing right there, when they break out of it we can communicate what we need to at that time. Heck, I have even said to them at that time, "You guys are out of timeouts." Again a lot is the vibe of the game, the relationship I have with the coaches of that team and what I talked to my partners about.

But most of the time coaches when you ask them "What kind of timeout coach?" They usually say, "I only have.......left anyway." So they know, we just verify that information. But as stated you do not have to knock yourself out to give them the information they are clearly aware of already.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Looks like we've got some consensus here.

Nobody, including me, is going to dig one's way deep into the huddle and distract the head coach from setting up a play with his players, just to satisfy the notification rule.

And yet, I've seen officials give this a try like they're digging for gold.

Notify an assistant coach early, as soon as possible (of course, by rule, this isn't kosher).
....

Who decided this isn't kosher? I've only got one person ever object to me telling an assistant coach, and he was an a-hole high school interpreter who didn't like college officials.

I very easily do both. I tell an assistant early and I tell the head coach afte ther huddle breaks before the ball becomes live. It does absolutely nothing to interfere with their time out or the flow of the game.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Who decided this isn't kosher? ... I very easily do both. I tell an assistant early and I tell the head coach after their huddle breaks before the ball becomes live. It does absolutely nothing to interfere with their time out or the flow of the game.

By not kosher, I meant that just notifying the assistant coach alone, with no followup confirmation with head coach, doesn't technically fulfill the obligation, by rule, to notify the head coach, although it might fulfill the purpose and intent of the rule.

Agree with everything else.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

By not kosher, I meant that just notifying the assistant coach alone, with no followup confirmation with head coach, doesn't technically fulfill the obligation, by rule, to notify the head coach, although it might fulfill the purpose and intent of the rule.

Agree with everything else.

Well, since I explicitly stated I do follow-up, I'm not understanding how it got applied to my post.

You're the one who alluded to only "possibly" notifying the head coach. You suggested to do something that isn't kosher: "Possibly later, if one has the time, after fulfilling one's other duties, followup and confirm the notification with the head coach at the end of the timeout." You've rewritten my response to fit your pre-determined narrative. When a team has used its last time-out, one of our duties is to notify the head coach. What other duty during a time-out trumps notifying the coach?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

Well, since I explicitly stated I do follow-up, I'm not understanding how it got applied to my post. You're the one who alluded to only "possibly" notifying the head coach ...

I'm not even Jewish.

I actually suggested that it wasn't kosher before Raymond's reply, my followup kosher was related to my original kosher.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

New situation ... Notifying a non-head coach adult, who is on on the fringe of the huddle not speaking, early in the timeout so that the information can be communicated to the entire team, possibly for strategy, before the timeout ends. Of course, by rule, this isn't kosher.

I believe that JRutledge also (along with me) alluded to only "possibly" notifying the head coach.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

#3 if I have time or remember. Likely talking to partners so that might not ultimately happen depending on the conversation with partners.

bob jenkins also alluded to it with the word "or".

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

1 or 3.

Like this the best.

Originally Posted by Raymond

1 AND 3. Not mutually exclusive.

Doesn't involve digging into the huddle. Gives and early notification to an adult (for strategy purposes). Gives the, by rule, notification to the head coach.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

When a team has used its last time-out, one of our duties is to notify the head coach. What other duty during a time-out trumps notifying the coach?

Agree.

Officials getting together to discuss their roles in the final seconds of the game, or an official having short chat with the table crew to make sure that everything is copacetic on their end, or officials moving back to original positions, should not trump notifying the head coach.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Never "bump" the timeout from the granting official to a partner closer to the table. Never. Ever. Under any circumstances. Doesn't matter how far away one is from the reporting area.

A possible problem here is that it can take a granting lead official and put him back on an endlne (some immediately, some at the warning buzzer) after reporting the timeout (no switching on timeouts). Did the reporting official notify the coach that he used his final allotted timeout, or did he choose not to dig into the huddle? Is a followup confirmation with the head coach after the timeout needed by the non-granting official, now at the division line near the table?

Over the years, almost all my partners that granted a timeout and were informed by the table that final allotted timeout had been taken, have only communicated to me that the team had used it's final allotted timeout, and not that the head coach had, or had not, been notified.

Seems a better mechanic to allow "bumping" from the granting official to a partner closer to the table (if not the same official). This puts all the notification responsibility on one official who can best decide when (or how) to notify the head coach.

Just spitballing here.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A possible problem here is that it can take a granting lead official and put him back on an endlne (some immediately, some at the warning buzzer) after reporting the timeout (no switching on timeouts). Did the reporting official notify the coach that he used his final allotted timeout, or did he choose not to dig into the huddle? Is a followup confirmation with the head coach after the timeout needed by the non-granting official, now at the division line near the table?

Over the years, almost all my partners that granted a timeout and were informed by the table that final allotted timeout had been taken, have only communicated to me that the team had used it's final allotted timeout, and not that the head coach had, or had not, been notified.

Seems a better mechanic to allow "bumping" from the granting official to a partner closer to the table (if not the same official). This puts all the notification responsibility on one official who can best decide if, and when, to notify the head coach.

Just spitballing here.

I'm not spit-balling. I'm telling you how I ACTUALLY DO things. So all these other what-ifs are absolutely meaningless to me. If my time-out position is going to put me 60' from the coach, then I make sure to communicate to the appropriate partner to make the notification.

It's not rocket science. I don't need to turn the process into a something that needs a dissertation to explain it.

The problem with your original post is that you limited the answers as if there are no other common sense ways to do it.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

If my time-out position is going to put me 60' from the coach, then I make sure to communicate to the appropriate partner to make the notification.

And a great partner you would be.

(Said non-sarcastically.)

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

And a great partner you would be.

(Said non-sarcastically.)

I may not be the greatest referee, but I make a concerted effort to be a great partner, and it's a reputation I pride myself in.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I may not be the greatest referee, but I make a concerted effort to be a great partner, and it's a reputation I pride myself in.

As do I.

One fifth of our Arbiter anonymous partner rating is teamwork (the ability to work effectively as a team with his fellow official, accepts criticism, shares the responsibility and avoids attempts to shift the blame, etc.).

It's always my highest rating (by far) of the five parameters (appearance and conditioning, mechanics, team work, judgement, and game management) that are peer rated.

I like to think of myself as a good partner, and thank God, my anonymous partner ratings (many with "good partner" comments) back me up.

Now if I could just get rid of my bum ankle and my bum knee ...