Excessive time-out granted, but...
 

Three scenarios follow these rules excerpts (of which other rules may be applicable, but are not included):

Rule 5-11-1... Three, 60-second and two, 30-second time-outs may be charged to each team during a regulation game. Each team is entitled to one additional, 60-second time-out during each extra period. Unused time-outs accumulate and may be used at any time.


Rule 2-11... The scorer shall: ART. 6... 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.


Rule 2-7... The officials shall conduct the game in accordance with the rules. This includes: ART. 12... Notifying the head coach when a team is granted its final allowable time-out.


Rule 5-11-6... Time-outs in excess of the allotted number may be requested and shall be granted during regulation playing time or any extra period at the expense of a technical foul for each, as in 10-2-3.


Situation A: With 2:05 remaining in the fourth quarter, Team A requests and an official grants the team its final allotted time-out. The scorer fails to notify any official. Play resumes following the time-out. With :44 seconds to go in the period, Team A requests and an official grants the team a time-out. The scorer then informs an official the latest time-out is an excess time-out. The official charges the team with a technical foul (10-2-3) to be administered after the completion of the time-out. Is the official correct, Y/N? If not, why not?


Situation B: With 1:33 remaining in the fourth quarter, Team A requests and an official grants the team its final allotted time-out. The scorer notifies an official, but no official notifies the head coach. Play resumes following the time-out. With :28 seconds to go in the period, Team A requests and an official grants the team a time-out. The scorer then informs an official the latest time-out is an excess time-out. The official charges the team with a technical foul (10-2-3) to be administered after the completion of the time-out. Is the official correct, Y/N? If not, why not?


Situation C: with :35 seconds remaining in overtime, Team B has requested and an official granted the team its final allotted time-out. The official properly notified the head coach in accordance with Rule 2-12-7. During the throw-in by B2 following the time-out, Team A applies heavy defensive pressure. To avoid a 5-second throw-in violation, Team B's head coach and/or B2 requests a time-out. The official ignores the request. Is the official correct, Y/N? If not, why not?

(Inspired by a similar post on a FB page.)

Discuss & debate!

The official is correct in the first two, and not correct (by rule) in the second. Failure of the scorer / officials to follow the instructions given does NOT absolve the team of it's requesting an excess TO.

TOs requested (at a valid time) should be granted -- heck, maybe the coach wants the T for some reason. In practice, if I think it was an error, I might not "hear" the first request

Nothing really to debate on the first situations, they are excessive time-out requests that were granted.

Situation #3, I might reach my 5-second count before realizing they requested a time-out. ;)

When Discovered ...
 

Agree with both bob jenkins and Raymond that failure of the scorer and/or officials to notify the head coach when a team is granted its final allowable time-out does not absolve the team from being charged with a technical foul for requesting and being granted time-outs in excess of the allotted number.

Failure of the scorer and/or officials to notify the head coach when a team is granted its final allowable time-out is certainly not a correctable error, nor does it seem to be recognized as any type of "mistake" that can be corrected.

I could not come up with any citation for this specific situation, but I did come up with a citation that tells us when to charge the technical foul:

2007-08 Basketball Rules Interpretations SITUATION 11: A1 requests and is granted an excessive time-out. The excessive time-out is discovered (a) immediately; (b) when A1 has the ball at his/her disposal for a throw-in following the time-out; (c) during a dead ball after three minutes have elapsed off the game clock. RULING: In (a), (b) and (c), assess a team technical foul to Team A for the excessive time-out. Team B is awarded two free throws and the ball for a division line throw-in. The penalty for an excessive time-out is assessed when discovered. (10-1-7 Penalty)

Do You Believe In Magic (The Lovin' Spoonful, 1965) ...
 

How about it Nevadaref, time to work your interpretations/casebook magic?

Buried In The Timeout Huddle ...
 

New situation. Tie game. With 0:52 remaining in the fourth quarter, Team A requests and an official grants the team its final allotted timeout, a thirty second timeout. The scorer notifies an official of such. Official attempts to notify the Team A head coach that Team A has been granted its final allowable timeout, but the Team A head coach is already buried deep in the middle of the Team A timeout huddle frantically drawing up a play and explaining the play to his players. While still early in the timeout, official pulls Team A assistant coach, who is on on the fringe of the huddle not speaking, aside and notifies the assistant coach that Team A has been granted its final allowable timeout, asking him to inform both the head coach and players.

What's best?

1) 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.

2) The official digs his way into the huddle and notifies the head coach early in the timeout so that the information can be communicated to the entire team, possibly for strategy, before the timeout ends, but distracts the head coach from his (limited) thirty second timeout strategy play calling huddle with his players.

3) Notifying a head coach immediately after the timeout ends, possibly after the players have already left the bench area and are already walking out onto the court.

Possibly complicating matters is that officials really want to get together to discuss their roles in the final fifty-two seconds of the game, as well as having a short chat with the table crew to make sure that everything is copacetic on their end.

Further complicating matters is that the noise level of the cheerleaders, pep band, and fans in the gym is off the charts.

1 or 3. NOT 2.

In 3, I don't really care that the players might have left -- there's still plenty of time for the coach to yell the info to them before the ball becomes live.

1 AND 3.

Not mutually exclusive.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

#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

Consensus ...
 

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.

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.

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

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

Technically By Rule ...
 

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?

Bumping ...
 

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.

Kosher ...
 

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.

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

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

Like this the best.

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.

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.

Trumps ...
 

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.

Good Communication ...
 

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.

Please Don't Ask About My Conditioning Rating ...
 

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 ...

Again, this is silly. Tell the coach however it works for you. Where I work assistants are usually very informed about these kinds of things. But not stopping a coach in mid-sentence to tell him something his assistant already knew in the first place. This is not that hard Billy. Really, really easy.

Peace

Silly ...
 

It's only silly until in the final seconds of a heated game, due to partners confusing notification responsibilities (maybe too busy after getting together to discuss their floor roles in the final seconds, or having a chat with the table crew, or moving back to original positions); or due to a distracted assistant coach not communicating with his head coach properly; followed by a head coach requesting and being granted an excessive timeout that costs him the game, and blaming it on the officials based on his rulebook knowledge of notification responsibilities ("I was never notified"); that it no longer can be considered silly.

Do almost all head coaches already know before "official" notification that they have used all their allotted timeouts? Sure, and it's on a lot of scoreboards.

Can officials be almost certain that assistant coaches, once notified, will be responsible and followup and notify the head coach? Sure.

Does almost mean 100%? No.

How often will a screw-up in notification by an official (not done by the book), or a distracted assistant coach, lead to a disastrous ending to a game? Seldom, if ever, but I don't what to be in that once in a million (maybe a brazilian (old joke)) disastrous game.

Put in simpler terms ...

Really? How difficult is this to achieve? We successfully do way more difficult things dozens of times in a game.

Final seconds of a heated game? Take your time. When the ball is dead we must be alive. Cross all the T's, dot all the I's, and safely get out of Dodge (sorry about the mixed metaphor).

JRutledge absolutely doesn't need this advice, his experience, outstanding reputation and resume speaks for itself, but young'uns making their way up the ladder should heed my advice.

To paraphrase a former president: JRutledge could blow a big call in the middle of Fifth Avenue and he would still be an outstanding official.

How many state finals has JRutledge worked? Several. How many state finals has BillyMac worked? None. State tournament games? Also none. Just an experienced, reliable, competent, skilled, qualified, journeyman official.

Final timeout notification? Work as hard as you can to do it by the book. Whatever it takes. Why not?

Just don't go digging into team huddles. I think that we can all agree on that.

It's only silly about 4 posts after the question; when three of us answered virtually the same way, the thread should have died.

Raymond Drops The Microphone ...
 

Short and sweet.

Was in a college game last season and the teams were informed at some point. No one said a word about us informing the coach or not informing the coach properly. You know what was the big debate by the coach to the supervisor? That we talked about it too long. And you know why we talked about it too long? It was a 1 point game and there was debate by my partners how many FTs we should take. The player called the timeout and never once did the coach blame us for not giving him the information. BTW, he was at home too.

Oh, same rules and procedures.

Don't know and don't worry about that kind of thing. Just saying that in my experience coaches are not unaware of their situation. Or they know how to find out if they are not clear. I am not the scorekeeper.

Another thing I do not worry about. If the assistant coach is unable to tell the staff and the players the situation, then they probably will not be an assistant coach very long.

Again, don't care. I am not stopping a coach from talking to give him this information. Also if I get a chance afterward it is up to them to use that information.

Not something I worry about. This took place in a game that I was not officiating when I was going for my first trip to the State Finals. It was at a Super-Sectional level (basically the level before you advance to the State Semifinals) and a team in overtime called a timeout in a one-possession game and basically ended the opportunity for the team that lost to win the game. Not one word about the officials telling the team anything about timeouts.


I was on this very site when it was discussed some years ago about how we should handle these things and there were people like you trying to convince everyone how bad it would be if a team called a timeout they did not have and the officials were not adamant about telling them their situation. And I was not at all a long-time official or someone with the games experience I have now. It was not an issue then and not an issue now.

Let me say this as well. If a coach did complain that they were not told, then my next question to them would be, "Don't you have people keeping the book? Don't you try to argue about score and fouls in the book as well and you do not know the timeout situation?"

Peace

Young'uns who are making their way up the ladder need to heed the advice of those in their locales/regions who have already made it to the rung they aspire to reach.

One thing that is universally agreed upon by those who have achieved great success is that young'uns need fewer voices in their ears, and the voices they do heed need to limit the verbiage and be concise in their messages.

I have said it to you many times in the past, but your over-explanations, wordiness, and plethora of what-ifs serve only to confuse those who are trying to learn.

Words Of Wisdom ...
 

Before I joined the Forum, 100% my officiating experiences came from a little corner of Connecticut (born, live, played, taught, coached, officiate, and will probably die here in Connecticut), and I was sure that our local "ways" were great, with some of my local colleagues claiming, the "best".

So what have I learned from the Forum after sixteen years that I didn't realize previously? Lots of stuff.

Most important? When in Rome do as one's Roman trainers, mentors, evaluators, and assigners want one to do.

Also, different isn't always better, or worse, it's just different.

Distracting ...
 

Never said that I would do that, never did it, just gave it as an option because I've observed subvarsity officials, and some varsity partners, digging into the huddle and distracting the head coach, and afterward suggesting to them that they do something otherwise.

And that is why I said if the assistant is right there and I can tell them, then they have been informed as far as I am concerned. If an assistant refuses to come to his or her head coach with that kind of information so the team knows the situation, then they have bigger issues than what rule was specifically followed by your personal standards. This is not football, we do not write them down ourselves. We are often at the mercy of the table people. This is no exception. I use the scoreboard for timeout records as I use the scoreboard for the possession arrow.

Peace

Notify The Head Coach Through The Assistant Coach ...
 

I'm not going to lie, I've been known to do this, or at least, to consider doing this, under certain rare circumstances. Sometimes I've may have important urgent issues to discuss with my partner, and/or the table; or more often, due to earlier unsporting behavior, I may not want to speak directly with the head coach. I'll usually work as hard as I can to do it by the book, but sometimes (rarely) I just don't get to the head coach and "settle" for the assistant coach. I just hope that this never comes back to bite me in the butt.

One thing that I will never do under any circumstances is to go digging into team huddles to notify head coaches, the point of my recent posts in this thread.

You think I am ignoring the rule? What is the spirt and intent of the rule as laid out? Do you think it really really matters if the head coach is told personally by the official or do you think it matters if they are simply told? Now if you can find an interpretation that is that specific, I will be waiting patiently. Otherwise if the coach is told by someone and you did your job to inform the team, I really do not see anyone caring. Never told officials that only the head coach can be told something like this. Just like captains can make certain decisions about things, but chances are I am going with what the adult says in those situations.

It is much more important to me to talk with my partners about things near the end of a game that is in question (and not in question) than trying to relay specific information to the coach that they have people that already track that stuff. I guess those that do not like that will have to be upset. But never had a high school supervisor even care about this one way or the other. We have to learn to run the game, not nickel and dime about things that no one is going to realistically know, let alone get upset with you about. High school coaches want explanations when we are not obligated to give them (like when a live ball is going on) and you worried about the specifics of how you tell them timeout situations? Really?

Peace

Purpose And Intent ...
 

Don't hold you breath. No interpretations, one way, or the other.

Fully agree with purpose and intent. Rule says to "notify" head coach. I can understand your definition of "notify", while others may differ.

Agree it's important.

Tone ...
 

Absolutely hate it when the coach replies, "I already know", when his tone really means, "I already know you stupid idiot".

Game's almost over, let it slide off your back.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

There's one particular coach up here at "Latitude 65" who is particularly difficult to deal with. I usually just give him the "Ok, coach, but by rule, I must notify you" response. I found that usually works with the first delay-of-game warning, too, since we're required to notify the HC on those also.

I worked in law enforcement for 15 years, so his tone matters little to me.

Try something like, "I know you already know, but I'm required to tell you -- you're out of timeouts"

Usually by the time you get past the first clause, the coach is saying "I'm out" and holding up a fist (indicating "zero")

Thank You ...
 

Same thing after, "Coach, that's #12's fifth foul", but of course, in this case the coach is much more likely to already be pissed off compared to a usually "neutral" timeout notification. For timeouts we occasionally get a "Thank you" like we're enjoying tea and cucumber sandwiches together. Never a, "Thank you", for a fifth foul notification. More like the prelude to a bar fight over beer nuts.

We have local guidelines in place (often brought up in pregames) that say we have the option the non-calling official notify the coach of the fifth foul if we know that the coach is already hot under the collar. I never use this guideline, don't want the coach seeing me cowering on the endline, I don't think it's a good look.

However, I will sometimes take advantage of a local guideline that suggests that the non-calling official remind the coach that he must sit down after technical foul that requires such. Might avoid a double barreled technical foul that might put a visiting coach on a cold bus in the parking lot.