The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)
-   -   Coach wants a timeout... (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/34983-coach-wants-timeout.html)

DC_Ref12 Thu May 24, 2007 11:47am

Coach wants a timeout...
 
...after the first free throw. He tells you before the first free throw is administered (while you're reporting the foul). Do you give it to him as soon as the first free throw is finished or do you make him ask for it again?

JRutledge Thu May 24, 2007 11:58am

I always tell them to request the timeout at the proper time or when they want it called. I do that so that if they change their mind it is not on me. I have yet to have a coach not understand or get mad because I did not give them a "pre-determined" timeout.

Peace

rainmaker Thu May 24, 2007 12:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge
I always tell them to request the timeout at the proper time or when they want it called. I do that so that if they change their mind it is not on me. I have yet to have a coach not understand or get mad because I did not give them a "pre-determined" timeout.

Peace

What he said.

Junker Thu May 24, 2007 12:14pm

I agree with the others. I'll say OK coach, but I'll look at you after the first to make sure. Then I do that and if they still want it, grant the TO.

Ch1town Thu May 24, 2007 12:19pm

With that being said, is it correct procedure to grant a pre-determined TO in the following situations?

a> after a team scores, the throw-in teams coach says give me a time out when we cross half court.

b> after a dead ball the defensive teams coach says if they score give me a time out?

Or should we have them request again?
Personally, knowing in advance on those type of situations makes managing the game easier. It’s nothing like granting a time out when coach really called the play “five out” or you didn’t hear coach requesting at all because of the crowd noise.

Jurassic Referee Thu May 24, 2007 12:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
...after the first free throw. He tells you before the first free throw is administered (while you're reporting the foul). Do you give it to him as soon as the first free throw is finished or do you make him ask for it again?

As the others have said, you simply follow the rules. You grant a TO only <b>when</b> it's <b>legally</b> requested. It's covered in NFHS rule 5-8-3.

Jurassic Referee Thu May 24, 2007 12:21pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
With that being said, is it correct procedure to grant a pre-determined TO in the following situations?

a> after a team scores, the throw-in teams coach says give me a time out when we cross half court.

b> after a dead ball the defensive teams coach says if they score give me a time out?

No and no.

Rule 5-8-3.

Ch1town Thu May 24, 2007 12:27pm

Yep, I guess the key words are granted only when...

DC_Ref12 Thu May 24, 2007 12:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
As the others have said, you simply follow the rules. You grant a TO only <b>when</b> it's <b>legally</b> requested. It's covered in NFHS rule 5-8-3.

The rule does not specify that a coach may not request a timeout for a future occurence. It only says specifies when an official may grant a timeout.

Jurassic Referee Thu May 24, 2007 12:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
The rule does not specify that a coach may not request a timeout for a future occurence. It only says specifies when an official may grant a timeout.

Yup, it sureasheck does tell you when to grant a legal request for a TO. That's exactly why you can't grant pre-requests. It ain't specified in the rule as being one of the <b>only</b> occasions during which TO requests may be granted.

DC_Ref12 Thu May 24, 2007 12:48pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Yup, it sureasheck does tell you when to grant a legal request for a TO. That's exactly why you can't grant pre-requests. It ain't specified in the rule as being one of the <b>only</b> occasions during which TO requests may be granted.

JR, the rule book gives NO guidelines on the requesting of a timeout. None. Only the granting of a timeout.

Mark Dexter Thu May 24, 2007 12:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
With that being said, is it correct procedure to grant a pre-determined TO in the following situations?

a> after a team scores, the throw-in teams coach says give me a time out when we cross half court.

b> after a dead ball the defensive teams coach says if they score give me a time out?

Or should we have them request again?
Personally, knowing in advance on those type of situations makes managing the game easier. It’s nothing like granting a time out when coach really called the play “five out” or you didn’t hear coach requesting at all because of the crowd noise.

Have them request again and, more importantly, tell them that they're going to have to request it when they actually want it.

The only thing that should be "easier" is that you now know the coach wants the TO, but you shouldn't cop out by granting it early.

Mark Dexter Thu May 24, 2007 12:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
JR, the rule book gives NO guidelines on the requesting of a timeout. None. Only the granting of a timeout.

Take another look at 5-8-3. They request, we grant, assuming the timing of both is proper. There is no provision for a "delay" between asking and receiving.

DC_Ref12 Thu May 24, 2007 12:53pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter
Take another look at 5-8-3. They request, we grant, assuming the timing of both is proper. There is no provision for a "delay" between asking and receiving.

Again, the timing is specifically linked to the "granting" and not the "request" as outlined in the rule.

I understand your point, but I also do not know for sure that because there is no provision mentioned, it is not allowed.

I'm just not convinced that it's not something that is allowed. I agree that it's poor procedure and, as JRut pointed out, can lead to confusion and therefore shouldn't be used, but I'm not really willing to concede - for the sake of argument - that it's illegal per se.

JRutledge Thu May 24, 2007 01:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
Again, the timing is specifically linked to the "granting" and not the "request" as outlined in the rule.

I understand your point, but I also do not know for sure that because there is no provision mentioned, it is not allowed.

I'm just not convinced that it's not something that is allowed. I agree that it's poor procedure and, as JRut pointed out, can lead to confusion and therefore shouldn't be used, but I'm not really willing to concede - for the sake of argument - that it's illegal per se.

A basic rule of thumb is when a rule does not specifically allow something it is a stretch to assume you can do it. In a situation like this it really is a stretch. BTW, a coach can only request a timeout. Officials actually grant them and I am not granting one with "if...." and "when this happens...." as apart of my duties.

Peace

The Canuck Thu May 24, 2007 01:06pm

I ask the coach to speak to the scorekeeper. Once the free throw has been taken, the scorekeeper will then sound the horn, at which point the timeout shall be granted.

JRutledge Thu May 24, 2007 01:13pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Canuck
I ask the coach to speak to the scorekeeper. Once the free throw has been taken, the scorekeeper will then sound the horn, at which point the timeout shall be granted.

That must be a FIBA expectation. That does not apply to any rules in the US.

Peace

DC_Ref12 Thu May 24, 2007 01:18pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge
A basic rule of thumb is when a rule does not specifically allow something it is a stretch to assume you can do it. In a situation like this it really is a stretch.

Fair enough. Makes sense.

The Canuck Thu May 24, 2007 01:22pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge
That must be a FIBA expectation. That does not apply to any rules in the US.

Peace

I know. But right now, FIBA rules are as foreign to me as they are to you. I am posting this so that I might learn them better.

Jurassic Referee Thu May 24, 2007 01:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
JR, the rule book gives NO guidelines on the requesting of a timeout. None. Only the granting of a timeout.

Say what?:confused:

What's your point? That's exactly what we've been discussing.....whether to <b>grant</b> a TO request or not. They can request a TO during the pre-game warm-up also, but we've also got a rule that says they ain't gonna get that request granted either. Rule 5-8-3 lists the <b>ONLY</b> times that you can grant a TO request. If you grant one at any other time, you've screwed up.

DC_Ref12 Thu May 24, 2007 01:52pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
What's your point?

Let me explain again.

The rules do NOT specify when a timeout may be reuqested, only when one may or may not be granted.

Based on that assumption and setting aside JRut's "word to the wise" interpretation for a moment, I'm suggesting that there is nothing in the rule book which indicates that it is illegal or inappropriate for a coach to request a timeout which is granted at a later time.

You said it is incorrect procedure. While I agree with JRut's "word to the wise" interpretation, from a strict constructionist point of view, I can see nothing incorrect about this procedure.

M&M Guy Thu May 24, 2007 02:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
Let me explain again.

The rules do NOT specify when a timeout may be reuqested, only when one may or may not be granted.

Based on that assumption and setting aside JRut's "word to the wise" interpretation for a moment, I'm suggesting that there is nothing in the rule book which indicates that it is illegal or inappropriate for a coach to request a timeout which is granted at a later time.

You said it is incorrect procedure. While I agree with JRut's "word to the wise" interpretation, from a strict constructionist point of view, I can see nothing incorrect about this procedure.

All right, let me throw out an obviously far-out example. A coach comes up to you before the game and tells you he wants a TO the first time the other team goes on an 8-0 run.

What do you tell him?

Jurassic Referee Thu May 24, 2007 02:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
Let me explain again.

The rules do NOT specify when a timeout may be reuqested, only when one may or may not be granted.

Based on that assumption and setting aside JRut's "word to the wise" interpretation for a moment, <font color = red>I'm suggesting that there is nothing in the rule book which indicates that it is illegal or inappropriate for a coach to request a timeout which is granted at a later time.</font>

A coach can request a TO any time that he damn-well feels like, even when we're in the shower after the game. There is nothing that is illegal or inappropriate about the <b>request</b>. What <b>IS</b> illegal and inappropriate is if you <b>grant</b> that TO at a <b>later</b> time. That would be completely wrong, by rule.

TO requests can <b>ONLY</b> be <b>GRANTED</b> as per rule 5-8-3. Pre-requests cannot be granted later, by that very specific rule.

Are you saying that the <b>rules</b> will allow you to grant a TO at any time other than when that TO request is made? If so, you are completely wrong.

DC_Ref12 Thu May 24, 2007 03:19pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
That would be completely wrong, by rule.

Again, in principle I agree with you. However, nothing in that rule backs up what you're asserting.

Only by applying "common sense" do you come to your conclusion, not by application of the wording of the rule. I'm merely pointing out that a) either the rule needs a bit of tightening up in this regard or b) it's not entirely true to suggest that my OP is procedurally incorrect.

DC_Ref12 Thu May 24, 2007 03:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Are you saying that the <b>rules</b> will allow you to grant a TO at any time other than when that TO request is made? If so, you are completely wrong.

What I am saying (for the third time now) is that the rule DOES NOT specify that the request - and the granting of that request - HAVE to happen simultaneously.

If you can find me verbage within the rule that suggests otherwise, I'd love to see it. But I've looked, and I can't find it.

Jurassic Referee Thu May 24, 2007 03:35pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
Again, in principle I agree with you. However, nothing in that rule backs up what you're asserting.

Only by applying "common sense" do you come to your conclusion, not by application of the wording of the rule. I'm merely pointing out that a) either the rule needs a bit of tightening up in this regard or b) it's not entirely true to suggest that my OP is procedurally incorrect.

What part of the following can't you understand?

<u><b>NFHS Rule 4-8-3:</b></u>
<i>Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official <b>GRANTS</b> a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted <b>ONLY</b> when:
a) The ball is in control of or at the disposal of of a player or his team.
b) The ball is dead, unless replacement of a disqualified, or injured player(s), or a player directed to leave the game is pending, and a substitute(s) is available or required.</i>

It's not "common sense". The <b>rule</b> lays out exactly when you can grant a TO request, and "sometime in the future" isn't part of what's laid out in that rule. The problem isn't with the way the rule is written. The problem is with people not understanding what the rule is saying.

LarryS Thu May 24, 2007 03:46pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
What part of the following can't you understand?

<u><b>NFHS Rule 4-8-3:</b></u>
<i>Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official <b>GRANTS</b> a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a time-out, such request being granted <b>ONLY</b> when:
a) The ball is in control of or at the disposal of of a player or his team.
b) The ball is dead, unless replacement of a disqualified, or injured player(s), or a player directed to leave the game is pending, and a substitute(s) is available or required.</i>

It's not "common sense". The <b>rule</b> lays out exactly when you can grant a TO request, and "sometime in the future" isn't part of what's laid out in that rule. The problem isn't with the way the rule is written. The problem is with people not understanding what the rule is saying.

OK...I KNOW it is best if the request and granting of said request happen at about the same time. HOWEVER, Jurassic please highlight the portion of the rule you posted that states the REQUEST can only be made during one of those two cases...rule states it can only be GRANTED during those time. :)

DC_Ref12 Thu May 24, 2007 03:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
The problem is with people not understanding what the rule is saying.

You included.

Again, the rule lays out when you can grant a TO request.

And that is: a) player or team control or b) dead ball.

It says NOTHING about the interval of time between the request and the granting.

NOTHING.

:)

Jurassic Referee Thu May 24, 2007 04:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LarryS
OK...I KNOW it is best if the request and granting of said request happen at about the same time. HOWEVER, Jurassic please highlight the portion of the rule you posted that states the REQUEST can only be made during one of those two cases...rule states it can only be GRANTED during those time. :)

Sigh....

See post #20 that I made at 2.28pm today. In that, I said that it doesn't matter one damn bit <b>WHEN</b> a TO is requested. The <b>rules</b> however state exactly <b>when</b> an official can grant a TO request. The only time that you can grant a legal TO request is at the time that is being requested. That's what 5-8-3 is telling you. If the play stops 3 minutes from now and there is no TO request made, howinthehell can you grant one?:confused:

If you and DC want to believe otherwise, hey, then feel free to do so. Of course, you probably should bear in mind that you have absolutely no rules backing to do what you want to do, but don't let something like that stop either of you from doing so.



I'm done repeating myself on this one.

Ch1town Thu May 24, 2007 04:44pm

Jurassic could you break this down for me one last time :D j/k

M&M Guy Thu May 24, 2007 05:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
You included.

Again, the rule lays out when you can grant a TO request.

And that is: a) player or team control or b) dead ball.

It says NOTHING about the interval of time between the request and the granting.

NOTHING.

:)

So, would you grant the coach's request for a TO after the other team goes on that 8-0 run? Remember, the coach requested it before the game started, and the run didn't happen until the 3rd quarter. Since you say nothing is mentioned in the rules about the interval of time between the request and granting, would you allow this?

Let me add another wrinkle - let's say the team has already used their TO allotment. Since you are granting the request, do you also assess the T for requesting an excessive TO?

Jurassic Referee Thu May 24, 2007 05:17pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
Jurassic could you break this down for me one last time :D j/k

Certainly.

At some point it becomes a complete waste of time to argue something. That's where this thread is at. If you don't agree with something posted on this forum, the easiest thing to do is to take it to your Association rules interpreter or, even better, somebody from your applicable state rules governing body. I suggest that would be the best course of action for DC_12 to follow. Hopefully he will check back in here with his answer.

If you don't agree with those sources, you're in the wrong bidness.

Btw, this particular situation has come up several times before on this forum. Surprise, surprise....

JugglingReferee Thu May 24, 2007 05:26pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
...after the first free throw. He tells you before the first free throw is administered (while you're reporting the foul). Do you give it to him as soon as the first free throw is finished or do you make him ask for it again?

My policy is to grant timeouts when they are legally requested, and only then. So yes, tell him he needs to reqeust the timeout at the appropriate time, but thank him for the "heads up" and that you will look to him after shot #1.

There are many cases in which a coach could tell you he wants a TO at _________. (fill in the blank). IMHO, it's best to not grant all requests for a time into the future, because then you have less to worry about, and are backed up by using the rule book. You are not there to coach - you are there to referee. A coach's job is to request a TO when he wants one.

JugglingReferee Thu May 24, 2007 05:31pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ch1town
With that being said, is it correct procedure to grant a pre-determined TO in the following situations?

a> after a team scores, the throw-in teams coach says give me a time out when we cross half court.

b> after a dead ball the defensive teams coach says if they score give me a time out?

Or should we have them request again?
Personally, knowing in advance on those type of situations makes managing the game easier. It’s nothing like granting a time out when coach really called the play “five out” or you didn’t hear coach requesting at all because of the crowd noise.

Have the coach reqeust the TO when s/he wants it, and that pre-requests will not be honoured. However, you can acknowledge the "heads up".

I was doing a provincial final one year when a coach yelled out "five out". When the team didn't respond, he yelled it again. I gave him the TO. After the game, the evaluator, in his own way, gave the coach sh!t for having a play called "five out".

As fro crowd noise, visual requests are valid requests. Sound doesn't interfere with light. ;)

Mark Padgett Thu May 24, 2007 05:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee
honoured.

Please don't spell in metric. It gives me a headache. Thanks. :)

Jurassic Referee Thu May 24, 2007 05:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett
Please don't spell in metric. It gives me a headache. Thanks. :)

Yor welcome.

JugglingReferee Thu May 24, 2007 05:48pm

Canadian Reply
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
lots of stuff

I understand what you're saying and you are correct, as you already knew.

Bottom line is this (to all, not just you): a request can be made at any time. It's up to the official to either grant or not grant the request. The official uses the rule to determine if s/he should grant the TO. There are four possibilities in the 2x2 matrix:
  1. Properly granting the request (request granted)
    - eg: Team A has inbounds player control of the ball + Coach A requests a TO + TO is granted
  2. Properly denying the request (ie. request denied)
    - eg: Team A has inbounds player control of the ball + Coach B requests a TO + TO is denied
  3. Improperly granting the request (ie. shouldn't've been granted)
    - eg: Team A has inbounds team control of the ball and the ball is being passed when Coach A requests a TO + it is granted
  4. Improperly denying the request (ie. should have been granted)
    - eg: Team A has inbounds player control of the ball + Coach A requests a TO + TO is NOT granted

If a coach requests a TO, and just after the request, his player loses player control of the ball, an opponent steals the ball and is on a breakaway for a game winning basket in the state championship with the B player likely to get a full scholarship to (insert your favourite NCAA team), the TO request shall be granted. A good official will have his whistle as soon as s/he can, and not care what happens to the B player and the breakaway.

JugglingReferee Thu May 24, 2007 05:50pm

American Reply
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
lots of stuff

I understand what you're saying and you are correct, as you already knew.

Bottom line is this (to all, not just you): a request can be made at any time. It's up to the official to either grant or not grant the request. The official uses the rule to determine if s/he should grant the TO. There are four possibilities in the 2x2 matrix:
  1. Properly granting the request (request granted)
    - eg: Team A has inbounds player control of the ball + Coach A requests a TO + TO is granted
  2. Properly denying the request (ie. request denied)
    - eg: Team A has inbounds player control of the ball + Coach B requests a TO + TO is denied
  3. Improperly granting the request (ie. shouldn't've been granted)
    - eg: Team A has inbounds team control of the ball and the ball is being passed when Coach A requests a TO + it is granted
  4. Improperly denying the request (ie. should have been granted)
    - eg: Team A has inbounds player control of the ball + Coach A requests a TO + TO is NOT granted

If a coach requests a TO, and just after the request, his player loses player control of the ball, an opponent steals the ball and is on a breakaway for a game winning basket in the state championship with the B player likely to get a full scholarship to (insert your favorite NCAA team), the TO request shall be granted. A good official will have his whistle as soon as s/he can, and not care what happens to the B player and the breakaway.

Mark Padgett Thu May 24, 2007 07:34pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Yor welcome.

Now I have a migraine. :(

The only upside is that I get to take more meds. :)

CoachP Fri May 25, 2007 06:45am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee
Have the coach reqeust the TO when s/he wants it, and that pre-requests will not be honoured. However, you can acknowledge the "heads up".

"Sir, I have a pre request....Everytime the closely guarded count/inbounding count gets to 4, I want a time out!":D



FWIW, I've never pre requested a TO before, but I have told the official (when he is reporting a foul) that I will be requesting one if B1 misses the FT and we secure the rebound. I have also "heads up'ed" an official when we were going to run an "funny looking play". Never had a problem with either.

Jurassic Referee Fri May 25, 2007 06:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoachP
"Sir, I have a pre request....Everytime the closely guarded count/inbounding count gets to 4, I want a time out!"



Kidding aside, there's absolutely no difference between this request and the other ones. Or maybe some of the other distinguished posters think that it's solely their choice when it comes to choosing what pre-TO requests they should grant or not grant.:rolleyes:

You can't have it all ways.

DC_Ref12 Fri May 25, 2007 07:33am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Or maybe some of the other distinguished posters think that it's solely their choice when it comes to choosing what pre-TO requests they should grant or not grant.:rolleyes:

Bitter much?

Dan_ref Fri May 25, 2007 08:53am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Kidding aside, there's absolutely no difference between this request and the other ones. Or maybe some of the other distinguished posters think that it's solely their choice when it comes to choosing what pre-TO requests they should grant or not grant.:rolleyes:

You can't have it all ways.

Well, there are 3 differences -

The first difference is the rule says one request gets one grant. You cannot have 1 request that gets granted at multiple times, as this coach is expecting. So if he had said I want a TO the first time the inbounds count gets to 4 we have a different story, leading to the second difference

This is a stupid tactic by the coach. The first time the count gets to 4 on an inbound play he could be up by 1 with 4 seconds left and no time outs left. Why would a coach open himself up to a T by pre-requesting a TO in this sitch?

Finally, if the coach makes this request before the game I cannot legally grant it, since timeouts cannot be granted prior to the ball becoming live.

A little more seriously, if you're standing by the bench on the second FT and he gets up to request a TO on the make just give it to him. If his guard is slowly bringing the ball up the backcourt without pressure and he gets up to request a TO when he gets to halfcourt just give it to him.

If you don't trust the coach or you're the nervous type look at him again before blowing the whistle.

If anything funny, unexpected or different happens between these pre-requests and the granting of the timeout then don't grant it.

It's really not that hard.

Jurassic Referee Fri May 25, 2007 08:57am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
Bitter much?

Say what?:confused:

I really could give a damn less what you think, to be brutally honest. We've gone over this particular play before several times here. I've also taken the time to check it out further, also before. So......how you or anybody else outside my particular area wants to call this play is completely irrelevant to me personally.

No one is saying that you <b>have</b> to call this play any particular way. All that is being said is that, in <b>our</b> opinion, your particular stance is completely and equivocably wrong, rules-wise and practice-wise. Don't let that influence you though. Hey, what difference does it really make really if no one in this thread agrees with you? Just keep calling what you want to call. Who cares? Shrug.

Jurassic Referee Fri May 25, 2007 09:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref

So if he had said I want a TO the first time the inbounds count gets to 4 we have a different story, leading to the second difference

If you don't trust the coach or you're the nervous type look at him again before blowing the whistle.

Soooooo.....does that mean that you <b>WILL</b> actually grant that pre-request for a TO the <b>first</b> time that the inbounds or closely guarded count gets to 4?

If so....silly monkey. Shrug.

M&M Guy Fri May 25, 2007 09:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC_Ref12
Bitter much?

JR? Oh, he's bitter all the time.

But he's also right this time. You're trying to read something into the rules that isn't there. The TO is requested (by player or coach), and the official can then grant it if it is allowed by rules, or ignore it if the request is not allowable. If a coach asks me, "Can I have a TO if he makes this FT?", I tell them, "Sure, but just verify it with me when he makes it". There is no set rule as to how the request is to be made, so if I know the coach will want a TO in a particular situation, and they give me some sort of acknowledgment, (nod, wink, "T" signal with the hands, whatever), I consider that the request.

It's not much different than when a team goes on that 8-0 run, you start watching that other coach because there's probably a good chance they'll want a TO. Then, when they give you the nod, or mouth "time out", or whatever they do, you'll be ready to grant the request at that time.

Dan_ref Fri May 25, 2007 09:11am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Soooooo.....does that mean that you <b>WILL</b> actually grant that pre-request for a TO the <b>first</b> time that the inbounds or closely guarded count gets to 4?

If so....silly monkey. Shrug.

Why would I do something so stupid?

chartrusepengui Fri May 25, 2007 09:19am

When I was coaching in these situations I would inform the official that I would be requesting a time-out if there was a made basket so that if the ball went in they would have a heads-up and be waiting for my request. Same with the other situation. It seemed to work well

Jurassic Referee Fri May 25, 2007 09:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref
Why would I do something so stupid?

Must have got confused.....:D

M&M Guy Fri May 25, 2007 09:24am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Must have got confused.....:D

See what being bitter all the time does to you. ;)

Dan_ref Fri May 25, 2007 09:29am

Quote:

Originally Posted by M&M Guy
See what being bitter all the time does to you. ;)

Bitter AND confused.

...sounds like a good name for a bar band, or a drink, or something. Or a game show! That's it!

"Howie"...slams down the little plastic box thingy..."I'm bitter AND confused!!"

M&M Guy Fri May 25, 2007 09:37am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref
Bitter AND confused.

...sounds like a good name for a bar band, or a drink, or something. Or a game show! That's it!

"Howie"...slams down the little plastic box thingy..."I'm bitter AND confused!!"

That's worth an additional 100 points, and you get to move on to the next round.

Or, "Dazed and Confused" - Led Zeppelin, approximately 1969. (That's somewhere around JR's 30-yr. officiating anniversary date, isn't it?)

Jurassic Referee Fri May 25, 2007 09:58am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan_ref
Bitter AND confused.

...sounds like a good name for a bar band, or a drink, or something. Or a game show!

Or somebody that's married.....

Then you can add "broke and horny".......

And you end up with.....wait for it.....Bitter, Confused, Broke, Horny, Dopey, Sneezy and Chuck

M&M Guy Fri May 25, 2007 10:28am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
And you end up with.....wait for it.....Bitter, Confused, Broke, Horny, Dopey, Sneezy and Chuck

Are those the Seven Deadly Sins?

kiwiref Sat May 26, 2007 10:09am

Coming from a different background in terms of rules, it was interesting to follow this discussion, particularly after the actual rule was posted.
IMO, the rule implies that the request has to be made at the appropriate time because there is no requirement for the officials to keep track of and administer pre-requests. In essence, the rule is "coach asks, referee grants if appropriate", not "coach asks, referee grants when the opportunity comes".
Giving heads up on an upcoming request is a different case altogether, obviously.
Cheers.

Old School Mon May 28, 2007 09:14am

I think common sense should be the rule of order here. If I'm in a loud gym and I'm standing next to the coach in the C position, and the player shoots a 3-pt attempt and the coach says in my ear, if that shot goes in, give me a timeout. That's easy for me, that's the exact way I prefer it. Shot goes in, beep, timeout!

Trail position on the 2nd FT attempt, coachs says if it goes in give me a TO. I say full or 30, he says full. Shot goes in, beep, TO, Full!

Now, in the event the coach changes his mind, which I will say has never happened, before I go any further. Beep, inadvertent whistle, no subs can enter, put the ball back in play. If he doesn't have a TO, he just bought one. Simple, simple, simple. JR just has to be right but I don't think we need to do anything to the rulebook here.

Now I consider granting that timeout, at that point in time a good working relationship with me and the coach. He doesn't have to scream, jump up and down trying to get the TO called after the made bucket, and he knows I'm listening to him. This has always been a positive interaction point for me and yes, I prefer the TO's come to me this way. You better not grant a coach a TO if you are at 4 in a closely guarded count, and he requested it early. That's cheating! I would tell the coach no way in that situation. After a made bucket, not a big deal, grant the TO request. Life goes on.

sseltser Mon May 28, 2007 09:53am

Quote:

Now, in the event the coach changes his mind, which I will say has never happened, before I go any further. Beep, inadvertent whistle, no subs can enter, put the ball back in play. If he doesn't have a TO, he just bought one. Simple, simple, simple. JR just has to be right but I don't think we need to do anything to the rulebook here.
Why aren't you going to allow subs (assuming NFHS)?

Mark Dexter Mon May 28, 2007 10:23am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old School
Now, in the event the coach changes his mind, which I will say has never happened, before I go any further. Beep, inadvertent whistle, no subs can enter, put the ball back in play. If he doesn't have a TO, he just bought one. Simple, simple, simple.

Ignoring the no subs comment for a minute . . .

The situation where the coach "changes his mind" - if he has TOs left, you do nothing, but if he doesn't have TOs left, you T him up?????? How about you charge him the timeout in BOTH situations (seeing that, in both, you stopped the clock to grant his timeout request).

This is the perfect illustration of why you should NOT even entertain requests for future timeouts - if the coach tries to weasel his way out of one, what are you going to do?

And not allowing subs? Unless you're doing an NCAA game and you're in the last 59.9 seconds of the game, subs can come in on ANY whistle (NFHS/NCAA). Period.

Jurassic Referee Mon May 28, 2007 11:50am

Quote:

Originally Posted by sseltser
Why aren't you going to allow subs (assuming NFHS)?

Because:
1) he doesn't know the rules.
2) he doesn't own a rulebook.
3) he makes up his own rules.

Old School Mon May 28, 2007 11:55am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter
Ignoring the no subs comment for a minute . . .

The situation where the coach "changes his mind" - if he has TOs left, you do nothing, but if he doesn't have TOs left, you T him up?????? How about you charge him the timeout in BOTH situations (seeing that, in both, you stopped the clock to grant his timeout request).

This is the perfect illustration of why you should NOT even entertain requests for future timeouts - if the coach tries to weasel his way out of one, what are you going to do?

And not allowing subs? Unless you're doing an NCAA game and you're in the last 59.9 seconds of the game, subs can come in on ANY whistle (NFHS/NCAA). Period.

True, I was thinking college on the subs. To be technical you could charge him the timeouts in both cases. Unless the coach was being a pain, I would not charge him the timeout that he now says he doesn't want. I would simply put the ball back in play. But that would be his one and only time he will do that, future requests will be a TO no matter what. Remember, I preference what I said with this has never happen. I have never had a coach request a timeout in this manner and then say he doesn't want it after I stop the clock. Never! I'm not going to debate something that almost never happens, it's just not worth it. In the event that it does happen, put the ball back in play, so you see, I got both sides of the issue covered.

A wise man once said; concentrate on things that might happen, and not on things that might not.

Old School Mon May 28, 2007 11:58am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Because:
1) he doesn't know the rules.
2) he doesn't own a rulebook.
3) he makes up his own rules.

Whatever! Feel better now?

Old School Mon May 28, 2007 02:51pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by sseltser
Why aren't you going to allow subs (assuming NFHS)?

Assuming HS (and for that matter NCAA too), and less than a minute to play in a close game. Any request for a TO and you put air in the whistle is a TO period. You don't want to give a team an advantage with an inadvertent whistle, allowing subs to come in when the clock should have never stopped. NFHS has a problem in this area and the clock not stopping after a made basket with less than a minute to play. Now here's where we need a rule change. We are taught in NFHS that if a coach doesn't have anymore TO's, to ignore the TO request or any attempts to try and stop the clock with 5 or less seconds remaining, particularly after a made basket. You don't want to have an inadvertent whistle here.

Now here's a good one for you. 5 seconds remaining in the game, NFHS, team A down by 1 after just scoring. Team A coach requests TO that he doesn't have. You grant TO stopping the clock with 4 seconds left. Access TF to Team A. Where is the ball inbounded after the F/T's from the TF? Does the team still have inbound priviledges if from the baseline?

Mark Dexter Mon May 28, 2007 03:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old School
Assuming HS (and for that matter NCAA too), and less than a minute to play in a close game. Any request for a TO and you put air in the whistle is a TO period.

I think I know the answery, but can you give a RULE reference as to why you'd shrug this off with more than 60 seconds remaining, but assess the TO with fewer than 60 on the clock?

Quote:

We are taught in NFHS that if a coach doesn't have anymore TO's, to ignore the TO request or any attempts to try and stop the clock with 5 or less seconds remaining, particularly after a made basket.
WHAT???? If you owned a rulebook, I might think you were confusing this with the casebook play that states that violations of the throw-in boundary plane by the defense, which would result in the team's warning for the game, are to be ignored with 5 or fewer seconds in a period and the clock running. NOWHERE in the rulebook are you allowed the liberty to ignore a TO request simply because the team has none left - this isn't football.

Quote:

Now here's a good one for you. 5 seconds remaining in the game, NFHS, team A down by 1 after just scoring. Team A coach requests TO that he doesn't have. You grant TO stopping the clock with 4 seconds left. Access TF to Team A. Where is the ball inbounded after the F/T's from the TF? Does the team still have inbound priviledges if from the baseline?
First off, I'm going to assess the technical foul to team A. Team B will have two shots, then B will recieve the ball for the throw-in at halfcourt - same as for any other technical foul. :rolleyes:

Jurassic Referee Mon May 28, 2007 03:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old School
We are taught in NFHS that if a coach doesn't have anymore TO's, to ignore the TO request or any attempts to try and stop the clock with 5 or less seconds remaining, particularly after a made basket. You don't want to have an inadvertent whistle here.

Sigh, it never stops......

As usual, you are completely wrong, rules-wise.

<b>We</b> are not taught that in NFHS. Or NCAA either <b>We</b> are not taught that because it goes completely against what is already in the freaking rule book. If a coach requests a TO while his team has player control or the ball is dead, you grant the damn request. It doesn't matter when this happens during any period, including the last 5 seconds.

Again, if you don't own rule books or understand the rules, you shouldn't be making comments on the rules.

Old School Mon May 28, 2007 04:43pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee
Again, if you don't own rule books or understand the rules, you shouldn't be making comments on the rules.

Relax, it's just a comment, not the end of the world.

Old School Mon May 28, 2007 04:55pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter
First off, I'm going to assess the technical foul to team A. Team B will have two shots, then B will recieve the ball for the throw-in at halfcourt - same as for any other technical foul. :rolleyes:

Good for NFHS, I was hoping for some of the HS only guys to take a crack at it. Now for you, what about NCAA? Where do you inbound the ball? And again, do you retain inbound priviledges?

I agree, you probadly shouldn't ignore the TO request even if you are sure the team doesn't have it. The point is don't have an inadvertent whistle with 5 or less seconds left in a NFHS game, espeically if it's close.

Old School Mon May 28, 2007 05:01pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter
First off, I'm going to assess the technical foul to team A. Team B will have two shots, then B will recieve the ball for the throw-in at halfcourt - same as for any other technical foul. :rolleyes:

Since we are being super technical here, this statement is incorrect. If you read in the book you will see that not all technicals fouls are inbounded at half court.:D

JRutledge Mon May 28, 2007 05:20pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old School
Since we are being super technical here, this statement is incorrect. If you read in the book you will see that not all technicals fouls are inbounded at half court.:D

Hate to break it to you, all HS single Ts go to half court. This is not a double foul so that would not count. I know you are trying to be clever, but it did not work. ;)

Peace

bob jenkins Mon May 28, 2007 05:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old School
Since we are being super technical here, this statement is incorrect. If you read in the book you will see that not all technicals fouls are inbounded at half court.:D

If we're being super technical (nice pun), then you're correct. I'm just not sure you know why you're correct.

Jurassic Referee Mon May 28, 2007 06:10pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old School
1) And again, do you retain inbound priviledges?

I agree, you <font color = red>probably</font> shouldn't ignore the TO request even if you are sure the team doesn't have it.

Whatinthehell "inbound privileges" are you talking about?

2)"Probably"? Don't think so, JMO. There's no "probably" involved. You follow the damn rules. Of course, you <b>do</b> have to know the rules before you can follow them.

Mark Dexter Mon May 28, 2007 07:04pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old School
Good for NFHS, I was hoping for some of the HS only guys to take a crack at it. Now for you, what about NCAA? Where do you inbound the ball? And again, do you retain inbound priviledges?

Men's - 2 shots for B, B retains the ball at the POI and can run the endline.

Women's - 2 shots for B, B has posession awarded (because of the excess timeout) at the division line (on either side of the court).

Mark Dexter Mon May 28, 2007 07:05pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old School
Since we are being super technical here, this statement is incorrect. If you read in the book you will see that not all technicals fouls are inbounded at half court.:D

You do for any technical foul for which possession is part of the penalty.

Old School Tue May 29, 2007 06:31am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob jenkins
If we're being super technical (nice pun), then you're correct. I'm just not sure you know why you're correct.

Double TF is POI, NFHS.

Old School Tue May 29, 2007 06:34am

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRutledge
Hate to break it to you, all HS single Ts go to half court. This is not a double foul so that would not count. I know you are trying to be clever, but it did not work. ;)

Peace

Not trying to be clever, just pointing out a fact and that was off the top.

Old School Tue May 29, 2007 06:40am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Dexter
Men's - 2 shots for B, B retains the ball at the POI and can run the endline.

Women's - 2 shots for B, B has posession awarded (because of the excess timeout) at the division line (on either side of the court).

Nice, this was one of the points I was trying to bring out. Completely different set of circumstances between NCAA Men's and NFHS.

Nice point on the women's side too. I did not know that it went to the division line, but I know the TO also comes with lost of possession in women's considering the team was on offense.

The Canuck Tue May 29, 2007 04:06pm

I am having a cup of coffee right now. I invite you all to do the same. It is common ground and will cut the jabs everyone is taking.

Centre line extended for technical fouls "of a[n]... administrative nature" (rule 38.3.2).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:42am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1