TIme outs

readingofficial · #1 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 16, 2005, 09:29am

Was watching a boys varsity game, team A's head coach gets ejected, in the third quarter. So assistant#1 step up as the head coach. Now to the senerio, team A has no time out left. Team A is down by 4 points with 6 seconds, team A hits a three point shoot and assistant#2 calls a timeout. Ref grants the timeout , then realizes that it was not the head coach(plus they had no timeouts) and said they can not have a timeout and put three seconds on the clock, and no T was given. Team A managed to get the game to OT, but ended up losing the game. The question is since head coach and players on the court are allowed to call timeouts. Can you give an assistant or player on the bench a T for calling a timeout, when the team does not have any timeouts left.

PIAA REF · #2 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 16, 2005, 09:38am

As long as I am reading this correctly it should have been a T. It would have been just a team T, nothing directly or indirectly to the coach. After a coach is tossed the assistant is now the new head coach and he can call time-outs. If it was granted on the floor, (ref blows his whistle to issue a time-out) the T should have been given for calling a excessive Time-out.

Stan · #3 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 16, 2005, 09:42am

Grant the time out, they will buy it with a T. 5-12-2

[Edited by Stan on Dec 16th, 2005 at 09:45 AM]

Jurassic Referee · #4 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 16, 2005, 09:43am

Quote:

Originally posted by PIAA REF
As long as I am reading this correctly it should have been a T. It would have been just a team T, nothing directly or indirectly to the coach. After a coach is tossed the assistant is now the new head coach and he can call time-outs. If it was granted on the floor, (ref blows his whistle to issue a time-out) the T should have been given for calling a excessive Time-out.

Where may I read that in the rules?

Nevadaref · #5 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 16, 2005, 09:44am

I believe that this situation would fall under 5.8.3 Situation E.
"The official erroneously grants Team B a time-out in a situation when Team B cannot have one. What happens now? RULING: Team B is entitled to use the time-out since it was granted. The time-out once granted cannot be revoked and is charged to Team B. All privileges and rights permitted during a charged time-out are available to both teams."

The official shouldn't have granted that assistant coach's request, but since he did and the guy did ask for it, you have to charge it and the technical foul for an excess time-out too.

Nevadaref · #6 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 16, 2005, 09:49am

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by PIAA REF
As long as I am reading this correctly it should have been a T. It would have been just a team T, nothing directly or indirectly to the coach. After a coach is tossed the assistant is now the new head coach and he can call time-outs. If it was granted on the floor, (ref blows his whistle to issue a time-out) the T should have been given for calling a excessive Time-out.

Where may I read that in the rules?

JR, this isn't going to help your case, but I agree with you.

I've asked around and I am in the minority opinion on this one. When the HEAD coach gets disqualified all of his privileges leave with him. Time-out requests now have to come from the five players on the floor.

PIAA REF · #7 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 16, 2005, 10:16am

Never really thought about it, maybe I am incorrect. I do not have my books with me. I will look and let you know if I find it.

PIAA REF · #8 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 16, 2005, 10:23am

Lets say this happened early in the game (when head coach was tossed) If the assitant isn't considered the new head coach and you had another T that would also issue an indirect on the head coach would you not give this to the assistant that is now the "head coach"

BayStateRef · #9 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 16, 2005, 02:40pm

There is no rule that defines "head coach."

I read the rules to allow one head coach per team. Only one. I had a game with "co-coaches." I told them for this game only one could be the head coach and they had to tell me which one it was.

As for an assistant getting the "rights" of the head coach, I say that is the intent of the rules. If the head coach is tossed for 2 direct Ts, the assistant may now be "head" coach, but has lost the right to stand. He still may call time out and whatever other "rights" exist for the head coach.

If a head coach leaves the gym on his own (for whatever reason), are you saying that the assistant that now has control of the team may not call time outs, stand in the coaching box, etc.? I can find no rules reference to support this interpretation.

Jurassic Referee · #10 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 16, 2005, 04:18pm

Quote:

Originally posted by BayStateRef
There is no rule that defines "head coach."

I read the rules to allow one head coach per team. Only one. I had a game with "co-coaches." I told them for this game only one could be the head coach and they had to tell me which one it was.

As for an assistant getting the "rights" of the head coach, I say that is the intent of the rules. If the head coach is tossed for 2 direct Ts, the assistant may now be "head" coach, but has lost the right to stand. He still may call time out and whatever other "rights" exist for the head coach.

If a head coach leaves the gym on his own (for whatever reason), are you saying that the assistant that now has control of the team may not call time outs, stand in the coaching box, etc.? I can find no rules reference to support this interpretation.

Similarly, I can find no rules references to support your interpretation.

Camron Rust · #11 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 16, 2005, 04:34pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by PIAA REF
As long as I am reading this correctly it should have been a T. It would have been just a team T, nothing directly or indirectly to the coach. After a coach is tossed the assistant is now the new head coach and he can call time-outs. If it was granted on the floor, (ref blows his whistle to issue a time-out) the T should have been given for calling a excessive Time-out.

Where may I read that in the rules?

JR, this isn't going to help your case, but I agree with you.
I've asked around and I am in the minority opinion on this one. When the HEAD coach gets disqualified all of his privileges leave with him. Time-out requests now have to come from the five players on the floor.

This is silly. If a team doesn't have a coach, they can't play.

If you no longer have a head coach, you can not properly disqualify players who have fouled out....there is no one to notify...he's gone. Does that mean that players can no longer foul out since they're not official disqualified?

Who do you charge a subsequet T to for permitting a previously disqualified player participate if there is no longer a head coach? The rules say the head coach is charged. Is it no longer illegal to come back after being DQ'd?

If there is no head coach, who do the indirect fouls go to for dunking during intermission/warmups? The rules say these are charged to the head coach.

Who is responsible for the conduct of bench personnel? The rules say the head coach is.

Unless you're saying that the ejection of the head coach negates all of these other rules, the person that takes over has become the new head coach.

Ref Daddy · #12 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 16, 2005, 10:04pm

ART. 2 . . . 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.

crazy voyager · #13 (**permalink**) Sat Dec 17, 2005, 04:05pm

I'd say the US goes to fiba's way

All time outs have to be recuested at the board (like substitutions) and can only be granted at dead balls or scores against you. End of story, no risk of granting time outs to wrong coach