|
Mon Jun 28, 2004, 07:41am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Had a situation this weekend that I was a little unclear about and couldn't find anything in the book about .
Team A is down by 30 late in the second half and calls a full timeout . After about 20 seconds Coach of team A sends his kids back on the floor and starts yelling at us (2 man crew) that he is ready and we should put the ball in play . Team B is still in the huddle under the impression that they have 60 seconds. Coach of Team A really starts to vocalize that we should put the ball in play because he called the timeout and he is ready to play and therefore we should put the ball in even though Team B is not on the floor . I ask Team B if he is ready and thankfully he puts his team back on the floor immediately . My long winded question is this : Does the team that called the timeout have the ability to determine the duration of the timeout ? Should I have told Team A to cool their jets and alotted Team B the full 60 seconds ? I asked a couple of guys that I have worked with and I got a couple of different responses... 
|
|
Mon Jun 28, 2004, 07:48am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Should have clarified
Fed Rules !!
|
|
Mon Jun 28, 2004, 08:05am
|
|||
|
|||
|
The coach of team A was wrong. If team B wants the full TO, they are entitled to it. Both teams have to be ready to play to have a shortened TO- not just one team. See casebook play 5.11.1(a).
|
|
Mon Jun 28, 2004, 08:41am
|
|||
|
|||
|
As JR said, in FED rules, the TO can be shortened only if both teams are ready to resume play.
In NCAA rules, if the team that was granted the TO is ready to play, the timer shall sound a warning horn and play will resume in 15 seconds. In NBA rules, a full TO may not be shortened.
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
|
|
Mon Jun 28, 2004, 09:02am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stuff can still happen
In Fed, even if both teams agree, stuff can still happen.
Last year, we had a late, very quick, end-o-game "substitution" time-out to get some subs in, and administered the ball at the tble-side division line, while at the far end of the court the cheerleaders were 1/2 way into a pyramid. and the ball was stolen.... By the time I knew what was going on, the ball was in play. mick
|
|
Mon Jun 28, 2004, 09:05am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Stuff can still happen
Quote:
|
|
Mon Jun 28, 2004, 09:23am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Much obliged
all ,
Thanks for your quick responses ! At lunch I am going out to my car and reading the casebook rule that JR quoted (5.11.1(a)). I was pretty sure the coach was wrong about this but not 100 % and seeing as he was down by 30 I did not want to get into a pissing match with him as he was obviously looking for one as he pulled this 3 times in the last 3 minutes of the game (Down by 30 points!!!). He would wait till the opposing Team got in their huddle and then send his players sprinting onto the court . I will have him again (Have had issues with him before) and I can't wait till he tries this one again....
|
|
Mon Jun 28, 2004, 09:38am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Much obliged
Quote:
|
|
Thu Jul 01, 2004, 02:06am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clearly another instance of a coach being wrong about the rules. Yet again, I'll advocate my position that this is an automatic T. Nothing will teach coaches the rules faster.
PS Did one of the cheerleaders step up and take a charge? 
|
|
Thu Jul 01, 2004, 10:54am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nevada
Where is the automatic in this T? I am most certainly confused. Clearly, things may have eroded to the point that a T would be needed, but the original post does not look like an auto-T to me.
|
|
Thu Jul 01, 2004, 11:07am
|
|||
|
|||
|
"The Nevada Doctrine": Any coach who persistently argues a rule after being told that the rule is not what he believes it to be shall automatically be issued a T.
__________________
Any NCAA rules and interpretations in this post are relevant for men's games only!
|
|
Thu Jul 01, 2004, 12:32pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
To be quite honest I was close to issuing a T and if Team B did not send his players back on the floor I more then likely would have been forced to because the coach of Team A was getting a little too riled up .
The reason I held back from issuing the T was because I didn't think it would help calm the situation . The coach was grasping at straws as he was down by 30 with about 2 minutes to go . I know I will hear back from people saying that I should have banged him but I think I chose the right path and was able to finish the game with no further incidents .
|
|
Thu Jul 01, 2004, 02:11pm
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
You did a good job in management. Now you own *that* rule. If it happens again you will have the confidence factor going for you, too. Catch some books and do some reading, there may be other situations where your rule articulation ability may come in helpful and assuring to the coaches. mick
|
|
Thu Jul 01, 2004, 02:37pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Sat Jul 03, 2004, 08:19pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
To answer HawksCoach's question: It didn't because WeekendRef wasn't sure of the rule himself. However, if I had been on the court for the coach pulling this quick in and out after which he then "starts yelling at us (2 man crew) that he is ready and we should put the ball in play" according to WeekendRef, he probably would have received a T. I would have told him, "That's not the rule. You have wait for the time-out to end." If I get any grief after that, he gets the T. Based on WeekendRef's description of the guy's behavior, I'd bet that both the grief and the T would have come.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
