Dealing with poor T by partner in OT

[Teigan]

hbioteach, i would have to say that a call can affect a game.....when you have someone "t'd" in a critical period of time in the game, you can affect the outcome. 2 weeks ago two rival teams, i'm talking 2 pt game throughout the whole game...so now were tied with 0.10 seconds to go (i totally belive this game is going to OT, which is completely warranted)....AND THEN theres a technical foul, for an ILLEGAL HEADBAND, as it does not match the color of the uniform as per NCAA rules. The other team sank the ball both times, and won the game. I talked to my partner after the game, why didnt we make that call in the beginning, why didnt we warn them, why didnt we just let it go....my partner says to me "I felt this was the appropriate time to penalize them", "they need to understand that the rules are there for a reason." HOW CAN ANY RATIONAL PERSON SAY THAT, THAT CALL DID NOT COMPLETELY CHANGE THE GAME!!...that theres never a time when a call changes the outcome of the game. I believe hbio you needed to talk to your partner after the game, and tell him what you thought, cause as the book says, the referee has no authority to overrule a call that an umpire makes..so stick by your partner....EVEN IF THEY LOSE THE GAME! cause really theres nothing you can do about it

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by SMEngmann


Additionally, I'd like to know what happened with the excessive timeout. I wasn't there, but maybe good preventative officiating by you, the vet, could have prevented an excessive TO technical in OT by team B. In my book, an excessive TO technical foul during a dead ball in OT is just as hard to justify from a game management perspective as the T for 6 guys on the court or bench personnel standing. If I'm coaching team A, and team B has just received an excessive TO technical, I'd make doubly sure my bench was in order.

Sounds to me like this was poorly managed in all regards, though you can't say the officiating "cost" anyone the game.

This post is right on target. Instead of complaining about the decision that your partner made, why don't you look at the excessive TO decision. Wouldn't it be better to just tell the coach that he doesn't have any time-outs left and inquire if he really wants one anyway? Did you call the T for this TO or did your partner do that one too.
Perhaps he thought that the excessive TO tech was a horrible call and just looked for something to balance it out? Not a wonderful way to handle things, but certainly plausible.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

This post is right on target. Instead of complaining about the decision that your partner made, why don't you look at the excessive TO decision. Wouldn't it be better to just tell the coach that he doesn't have any time-outs left and inquire if he really wants one anyway? Did you call the T for this TO or did your partner do that one too.
Perhaps he thought that the excessive TO tech was a horrible call and just looked for something to balance it out? Not a wonderful way to handle things, but certainly plausible.

I would never ask -- call a timeout, you get it. This ain't football.

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Jan 23rd, 2006 at 07:42 AM]

[Nevadaref]

I'm not one who normally asks either, but here is a guy complaining that his partner made a horrible technical foul call in OT and it struck me that quite possibly he had just called a technical foul that some other officials might consider darn poor just prior to his partner's call and with exactly the same amount of time on the clock!
Funny how both calls are clearly justified by the rules, but he only labels one of them as horrible.
My point was only that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What some dislike others may like and vice versa. Perhaps he should be more concerned with his own decisions than those of his partner.


I know plenty of people who would consider it poor game management to call a T for an excessive time-out when the ball is already dead because of a foul and a team is going to be administered FTs during an OT. It's not like this is a Chris Webber situation, and if I recall correctly the officials ignored his first request in the backcourt on that play and let him travel prior to finally granting his TO request in the frontcourt.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Funny how both calls are clearly justified by the rules, but he only labels one of them as horrible.
My point was only that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What some dislike others may like and vice versa. Perhaps he should be more concerned with his own decisions than those of his partner.

Gotta agree with that.

How come though that concept doesn't also hold true if, say, a personal foul and an intentional personal foul can also both be justified by the rules on the same play? You know....what some dislike others may like and vice versa? "Spain that to me, Batman.

[SMEngmann]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

I would never ask -- call a timeout, you get it. This ain't football.

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Jan 23rd, 2006 at 07:42 AM]

I don't entirely disagree with that, but there are other ways of preventing this situation, such as informing the coach when he calls his final timeout that he has none left. This is not required, but it is good game management and could prevent an ugly situation later.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by SMEngmann
[/B]

I don't entirely disagree with that, but there are other ways of preventing this situation, such as informing the coach when he calls his final timeout that he has none left. This is not required, but it is good game management and could prevent an ugly situation later. [/B][/QUOTE]It's not only required to tell a coach when he's taken his last time-out, it's mandatory by rule.

Rule 2-11-6--"The scorer shall record the time-out information charged to each team (who and when) and notify a team and it's coach, through an official, whenever that team is granted it's final allotted charged time-out".

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Gotta agree with that.

How come though that concept doesn't also hold true if, say, a personal foul and an intentional personal foul can also both be justified by the rules on the same play? You know....what some dislike others may like and vice versa? "Spain that to me, Batman.

If you go check that other thread, I concurred with you on this. Never meant to imply that I didn't.