"...poor game management...."

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
[/B]

I will grant you that there are groups of officials that do not want the handle certain situations per the rules because there are certain areas of the country where coaches exert undue influence upon officials but that is no excuse for doing the correct thing.

I have found that the officials handle the difficult situations the correct way rather that following the herd will always rise to the top because there are always people knowledgeable in the correct application of the rules and mechanics.

[/B][/QUOTE]Mark, I think that you completely missed the point that was being made. It's not a matter of handling a certain type of play strictly according to the rule book; it's a matter of officials following the lead of the rules interpreters/evaluators/assignors in their particular area. If the interpretors tell their guys to use a certain procedure, then their guys will use that procedure, if they want to keep on working. It's no different than you telling your guys in your Association to do things a certain way. You expect them to listen to you. Similarly, rules interpretors in other areas expect their officials to listen to them- not you.

[JRutledge]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

I will grant you that there are groups of officials that do not want the handle certain situations per the rules because there are certain areas of the country where coaches exert undue influence upon officials but that is no excuse for doing the correct thing.

Mark,

Did it ever occur to you, that the reason officials do not adhere to the letter of the rules, is because officials feel it is better to handle the situation that way? That is a load of crap if you think coaches are the ones that make these "rules" or "differences." For one, at least in my area we have many officials with college experience that teach the HS officials. So sometimes the philosophies slip thru and are taught at the High School level. I am not talking about undermining what the NF wants, but using more of a game managemant style rather than using the letter. That has nothing to do with the coaches, that has to do with the officials. And I can tell you that I know of assignors that would make a huge issue if you used this procedure, without making every attempt to prevent having to use it. And it will not be the coach that gets on you, it will be the assignor that will. And when many got on me about how I handled timeouts and informing coaches when they are out, the philosophy that I use comes from a former Big Ten Basketball Official, who happens to be our Head Clinician in our state. And I had officials all over this board telling me that I did not understand the rules or I did not know what I was talking about. But 2-11-6 it not going to get any official in major trouble if they are not doing it as the rulebook states. At least not in my state. But it might in your area or in other states where people claimed this was so important to officiating.

I use that as an example because that was one of the biggest discussions we have had here, but if I go to someone else's state, I might have to change what I do. Because the philsophy here is that coaches should know what their timeout situation is. And in my state the philosophy does vary on how to handle the Resume Play Procedure. And if you use it in the 4th quarter with the game on the line, you might be watching more than you are officiating. Just a fact. You do not have to agree.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

I think that many of you are missing the point. There is only one correct way to do things per the rules and casebook plays. There are interpretations and casebook plays that I do not think are correct, but has a rules interpreter, it is my responsibility to give the correct interpretation and to make sure that officials and coaches who come to me get the correct intepretation and not some personal opinion. I have a real problem with intepreters and assignors who think that their interpretation is the one that should be used and not the correct interpretation.

The rules book and officials manual gives us a protocol to follow for resuming play situations. If it is followed, very rarely will you get to a point where you have to place the ball on the floor because the team who is to make the throw-in is still in its huddle.

More importantly, why should one team be allowed to continually flaunt the rules, while the other team follows the rules. Every time you let a team determine when it wants to break its huddle, that team will take longer and longer.

But lets look at the resuming play protocol.

Lets have Team A making a throw-in after the time-out.

1) The warning horn sounds. The officials step toward the team's huddles with one finger (not the middle one because the coach is a jerk) and announce first horn. While not required, it does not hurt to announce that the Captain should break his/her huddle.

1.1) Team A breaks its huddle at the warning horn and gets into position to make its throw-in.

2) The officials should take their appropriate positions on the court for the throw-in.

3) The horn signaling the end of the time-out sounds. Team A has broken its huddle at the warning horn and is in position to make its throw-in.

3.1) Team B is still in its huddle.

What should the officials do? Yes, it is very prudent that the non-adminsitering official should make one attempt to have Team B break its huddle. But only one attempt. Captain B and Coach B knows he/she should have had his/her team should have broken its huddle by now. If Team B does not break its huddle, then put the ball in play.

If Team B is still in its huddle after the time-out ending signal and refuses to break its huddle when told by the non-administering official it does no good for that official to stand there like a fool and keep telling Team B to break its huddle. If the officials stand there and keep telling Team B to break its huddle and does not put the ball into play until Team B does finally break its huddle, Team B will wait in its huddle every time-out until it is ready to play. This is a situation that no one wants, and it makes the officials look bad. If Team B gives up an uncontested layup because its Captain and/or Coach tries to circumvent the rules, I can guarantee you that Team B will be ready to play at the appropriate time for the next time-out.

There really is nothing difficult about following the protocol, what is difficult to understand is why would officals, interpreters, and assingors require their officals to be made fools by coaces like the one for Team B above.

[mnref14]

Guys and Gals - I really feel it comes down to this, Do you want to be right or do you want to work??? I have never had to put a ball on the ground after a timeout, you and/or your partner have to make it clear to teams to break out of their huddle on time. If they don't, you make it a point to make sure the coach understands that next time its an issue you'll have a delay of game warning(I've never had this either). I just think it looks ridiculous when people set the ball down unnecessarily; what's the major hurry? Where do you have to go? I know you're all going to come back with extreme stories, but I know for a fact that many officials drop the ball just to prove a supposed point. In my mind, we're there to work with the teams, not against them. I understand there may be some "Bush League," JV teams/coaches that won't listen; but rise above that. To me, slamming the ball down is like spanking a misbehaving child - it probably didn't have to come to that if you/they had communicatted better. I can't imagine a team not breaking a huddle if we do our job of handling the communication. Now I know you're all going to be mad at me, and I'm terrible for taking the coaches/player's side but I'll say it again: Putting the ball down does not help a game in any way!!!!

Peace to all, Good Luck at State - Can't Wait

[Adam]

Originally posted by mnref14
To me, slamming the ball down is like spanking a misbehaving child - it probably didn't have to come to that if you/they had communicatted better.

You don't have kids, do you?

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by mnref14
Guys and Gals - I really feel it comes down to this, Do you want to be right or do you want to work??? I have never had to put a ball on the ground after a timeout, you and/or your partner have to make it clear to teams to break out of their huddle on time. If they don't, you make it a point to make sure the coach understands that next time its an issue you'll have a delay of game warning(I've never had this either). I just think it looks ridiculous when people set the ball down unnecessarily; what's the major hurry? Where do you have to go? I know you're all going to come back with extreme stories, but I know for a fact that many officials drop the ball just to prove a supposed point. In my mind, we're there to work with the teams, not against them. I understand there may be some "Bush League," JV teams/coaches that won't listen; but rise above that. To me, slamming the ball down is like spanking a misbehaving child - it probably didn't have to come to that if you/they had communicatted better. I can't imagine a team not breaking a huddle if we do our job of handling the communication. Now I know you're all going to be mad at me, and I'm terrible for taking the coaches/player's side but I'll say it again: Putting the ball down does not help a game in any way!!!!

Peace to all, Good Luck at State - Can't Wait

I can not agree with this.

Some teams will take what ever time you allow them to take and will not come out until they are done. There is no such thing as a "delay of game" warning for this. After giving them sufficient time to coe out...put the ball down. I'm pretty liberal with the time I do allow them but I'll be an *** if I have to. They get a specified number of timeouts of a specified length. If they need more time, take another one. If they don't need another one, be done.

I notify them on the first horn. I then call them out again at the final horn. If they're not breaking, I wait a few seconds more, blow the whistle, give them 3-4 more to see if they're breaking. If not, one really solid whistle and the ball goes down.

I also don't start the timeout until both teams are fully at thier bench. If they want extra time, hustle to the bench before the other team gets there.

If they've taken more then 10-15 seconds after the final horn sounds, the ball should be put in play.

I guarantee it will only happen once per game.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

You don't have kids, do you?

AMEN to that!!

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Julie, I agree with you.

Thanks, I think. Folks, I'm not saying that it ought to be 3 seconds after the horn. But if a coach is being just plain stubborn, or arrogant ("No way we're going to start until I'M ready!"), I'm quite willing to give the other team an uncontested lay-up. And I'm quite willing to T the stubborn coach or toss him if necessary, if he complains too much. I'd have done the same for his team if the situations were opposite. Remember, I DON"T CARE WHO WINS!

[Bart Tyson]

Originally posted by rainmaker

Thanks, I think. Folks, I'm not saying that it ought to be 3 seconds after the horn. But if a coach is being just plain stubborn, or arrogant ("No way we're going to start until I'M ready!"), I'm quite willing to give the other team an uncontested lay-up. And I'm quite willing to T the stubborn coach or toss him if necessary, if he complains too much. I'd have done the same for his team if the situations were opposite. Remember, I DON"T CARE WHO WINS!

Does the punishment, fit the crime? There are a lot of battles if you really want to pick-um.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Snaqwells

You don't have kids, do you?

Now that's funny! True,too.

Someone delete this thread.