My feelings exactly.

Here is the change for this in English. I should have just wrote this instead of trying to describe it in my own words.

The timeout and intermission postions have been changed so that the administering official will stand where the ball will be resumed and the non-adminstering official will stand facing the table on the division line (on the circle nearest the table for a 30 sec. TO and on the circle farthest from the table for a 60 second timeout.)

The Committe felt that keeping an official at the location of the ball (as opposed to the blocks) will eliminate questions during timeouts as to where the ball will be inbounded or where play will resume. The off-ball official will be near the table to handle any subs or questions from the table.

Now, if you are the reporting official at the top and the ball will be inbounded at the top. You will report, signal to the timer to start the TO clock, then go get the ball and stand at the inbound spot. The other official could be at the baseline (lead position), must now come to the division line. This official will also notify both teams of the first horn warning.

Huh ? http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/la...smiley-011.gif

Okay, just for clarification.
The official who calls and reports the timeout will stand at the division line. The non-calling official takes the ball and stands where he/she will administer the ensuing throwin.

Well I guess you missed the part where I said I haven't read anything about the rule or mechanics changes which forced me to describe it in my own words.

Negative!

As unlikely as it might seem, OS is right this time.

The timeout positions have NOTHING to do with who calls/reports the timeout.

If the throwin will be administered on your line, you go to the spot whether you called the timeout or not (after reporting if you do call the timeout).

If the throwin will be administered on your partner's line, you go to the division line whether you called the timeout or not (after reporting if you do call the timeout).

Think of it as if a defensive violation occurs at the location of the ball at the time of the timeout. Whoever would have administered the throwin for the violation will also administer the timeout throwin and will also go to the spot. Who calls the timeout is NOT a factor.

Examples:

In all cases, whoever calls it reports it before going to their spot.

1. Ball in the backcourt when the timeout is called...trail administering
   • Trail will go to the spot.
   • Lead will go to the division line.
2. Ball in frontcourt such that the throwin will be on the endline or on the lead's sideline
   • Lead will go to the spot
   • Trail will go to the division line
3. Ball in frontcourt such that the throwin will be on the trail's sideline
   • Trail will go to the spot
   • Lead will go to the division line
4. Throwin due for team A due to a violation or foul...
   • Whoever was to adminster that throwin (after switching) will go to the spot
   • The other official will go to the division line
5. FT's to be taken after the timeout
   • New lead goes to the FT line
   • New trail goes to the division line

Cameron,
Is this in the official's manual? I just wonder if it's a regional thing; because I've always done it based on who made the call.

Guess this is more evidence of the stopped clock theory.

I don't have the current manual. However, that is the way it used to be.

A lot of people still got it all messed up...doing it the way you described. Since it's one of those things that doesn't make much difference, I just went to what ever spot my partner didn't go to if they were already in a spot.

Please point me to where I may find in the mechanics manual the above procedure for time-outs.

I agree with Camron that this is how it's supposed to be done, here. To do otherwise would sometimes force a switch, and there's not supposed to be a switch on a TO.

YMMV.

Not the first time I've been wrong. Won't be the last.

I ... w i l l .... resist .... :D
Actually, I don't post all that much for reasons similar to yours, but I do find most of the nit picking quite humorous, and often instructional, when it helps clarify what was meant.

Not supposed to ?
I'll force a switch if I feel like I've been in one position for too long.
Other times, I'll force a switch if I think my partner has been in one position [missing necessary contact fouls] for too long.

You are wise beyond your years.....

Sometimes dogma needs to be replaced with common sense.

While I agree, that adds information not in the OP. So, assuming there's no other (game management) reason to switch, don't switch on the TO.

It's not in the manual. Whoever administers the time-out, calls the timeout, point to the throw-in spot and goes to the division line while the other official continues to observe the floor while retrieving the ball and going to the spot of the throw in. I think back in the day when you were able to hand off a time-out you can do it the way Cameron describes. It just doesn't make much sense to go from the endline to report the timeout, then let the coach know if it's his last timeout (as written in the procedure) then go back to the throw-in spot, while your partner is standing in the trail position watching you report then watch you go back and retrieve the ball and go to your old spot so he can take a few steps and take his spot at the division line. I've just always done it this way in 2-man.

I totally agree. Often at times, especially during the end of the game, our crew will come together during the timeout to briefly discuss the current sitation, at that time we may and have switched for those same reasons.

Seems to be one of those "when in Rome" deals.

I wouldn't be afraid of doing it in Colorado. :)

I don't know. The thin air can do weird things to people.

This is accurate, from what my memory tells me. I do remember hearing this interpretation being that of our provincial interpretor.

You posted it yourself....

http://www.nfhs.org/core/contentmana...erences_07.pdf

I just expanded it with examples for those that didn't understand it.

Again, this is not the correct procedure. It may be what is done locally, but it is not the NFHS procedure....at least not what it used to be before the method used the last few years and, supposedly, what they're returning to.

Whoever doesn't call the timeout does retrieve the ball and heads to their spot while observing the players. If that person is going to the throwin spot, they keep the ball, if not, they bounce it to their partner (as they head to the throwin spot) when they finish the timeout report.


Whether you think is makes sense or not doesn't make it wrong. I could come of with additional examples that use your method that have one official standing and the other walking around.

The longer you do something wrong doesn't make it right! :p

Cameron, I'm questioning whether this is an "official" NFHS procedure, or whether it's something that's regionally interpreted from the NFHS procedure. It may well be a nearly ubiquitous intepretation, is it (has it been) "official?"

What about freezing field of vision and retrieving ball after partner has completed his report?
Is that gone in the new mechanics?

I really liked the way you guys iced me out of this one. That's okay, do what you feel is the right thing to do. Speaking of switching, maybe not so much that we are communicating too much with coaches, but going back across the table forces better rotation.

You heard it hear first folks.

Why do you think the NCAA Men's won't acccept or adopt NBA rotations? The NBA rotations are so much better in that it keeps the referee's into the flow, where you might feel you need to switch because of an inactive partner or you're been in a spot too long. Prior to this change and the women still have it, you could sit in the C slot for a long long time.

Mick sort of beat me to this, but if the ball is not within one or two steps of where you are, DO NOT CHASE THE BALL. Please. The ball will come back eventually, even if you have to ask someone to help you out.

This is probably not quite as important when reporting a time-out, because the players are heading to their benches. But if you're reporting the time-out and I'm bending over to pick up the ball, who's watching the players as they move to the benches?

I don't understand what you are saying about *you guys* and about icing you out.
Do you care to elaborate?

It's not a big deal, what's important is the topic under discussion, and i have always done it the way CR suggests.

Yes, I posted the link. However, nowhere on that page or in the Officials Manual am I able to find your instructions as written by yourself though. Again, where may I find something from the FED that agrees with your statement. Until you can come up with something, you sureasheck can put me in the group that can't understand it. That's because I can't <b>find</b> it.

As already illustrated in this thread, different areas seem to use slightly different mechanics. Until Camron can point out exactly where we can find the definitive FED backing for his particular interpretation, methinks I'd have to say that everybody is right as long as they are following the rest of the TO procedures as put out this year in the page that I linked.

Well in all honesty, I haven't done a 2-man NFHS game in about 4 seasons. When I do 2-person it's usually rec/off-season ball and seldom do we follow the mechanics to a tee. And I can almost assure you that I don't for a timeout mechanic, not when you're doing 3-4 games back to back. :D

I don't grant TOs because they are just "game interrupters." Plus, I then don't have to worry about these mechanics, or notifying the coaches when they are out of TOs (I take care of it at the pre-game conference)

Excellent game management tip! I'm going to borrow it, if you don't mind. Is this an NCAA philosophy or NFHS philosophy?

Oh, oh, oh...I get it. That's sarcasm. See, I'm getting better at this type of thing...too bad it wasn't making fun of M&MGuy though...

He was, you just didn't recognize it.

Nothing goes over your head, does it? :D

Actually, <B>everything</B> does.

Everything but Chuck. Deej is 1/96 of an inch taller than the Chuckster. That's why he calls him "Shorty".

Oh, yea, that's right.

I must've <B>overlooked</B> that.

Sorry.

Half times are too. And don't get me started about free throws.

No fouls == No FTs. Plus, you don't have to worry about fouling out the "star player" who is the only reason we even bother to have a game.

Half times are important. Management gets a chance to sell concessions and the officials get a chance to play "can you top this?" when discussing previous games.

Don't forget, no fouls = no switching. That means less moving, and easier money.

I like this game.

I didn't detail the "timing" of the actions...of course we must observe the players until they've cleared the floor and there is no longer a risk of something happening.

Ha ! <iiiiiiiiiii>:)

All I've done is combine the throwin spot rule with the throwin coverage mechanic and and applied it to the timeout mechanic. It's not all in the timeout mechanic because the rest is already covered in existing rules/mechanics.

It says "Administering Official - throwin spot".

Just what does that mean? The official who'll be administering the throwin will go to the spot (maybe not "immediately" but after observing the players and/or reporting the timeout).

Now, who is that? Well, that is clearly covered in other parts of the mechanics manual and that hasn't changed in at least 15 years. I don't have it with me to quote but the spot of the throwin is determined by where the ball is when it becomes dead. Who administers the subsequent throwin is determined by that throwin spot....FC endline or lead's FC sideline is the lead's throwin, all else is the trail's.

Since the timeout procdure says nothing about changing who is responsible for administering throwins on the various lines, it remains as it would for any other stoppage.

Oh sure, Bob comes in strong the last few days and all you can do is come back with short jokes...it's just sad, I tell ya, just sad.

Of course, if you read carefully, I've offered nothing other than praise of others who have been sarcastic...oh well. I'll crack some old jokes next week for JR.

Yup, that's what <b>you</b> did. Now tell me where I can find the FED language authorizing you to do so. That's all I want to know.

That's ok - it's always good to fall back on the old standby's.

My two cents on the topic - granted, I don't work as many 2-person games any more, but I would think the main issue would be to avoid any confusion and possible "holes" in coverage between partners. The obvious thing would be to pre-game this with your partner. We know where we're going to end up (administering official at throw-in spot, other official along the center line), but make sure you're both on the same page with regard to who is reporting and what the other official will do during the reporting process. Perhaps, in some instances, it would be ok to "pass off" the TO reporting to your partner, while you stay with the players and the ball. Some officials will never do this, but as long as you cover it in the pre-game, it won't become an embarrasing moment during the game.

So you're telling me that two rules/mechanics can't/shoudn't be combined unless the NFHS explicity does so for every combination and permutation? Do you need everything spelled out?

Simply put, we have a mechanic that says who is to administer the throwin when the ball becomes dead (and it makes no exception for timeouts). Unless there is something that tells us otherwise, that is what we do. I suggest that it is you that needs to show me something that negates the mechanic we already have.

Agree.

Say what?

Yes, I sureasheck do need everything spelled out. And I need it spelled out from a source other than someone posting on this forum who has no official NFHS rules-making or interpretation powers.

I'm not the poster that's claiming that his way is the only true way, with absolutely <b>no</b> real proof cited to date to back up his claim. That would be you. All I'm saying is that I'm not aware of any definitive NFHS language anywhere that will prove conclusively who is right or wrong. I asked you to cite anything that the FED has issued that will back up your claim and prove that the posters who disagree with you are wrong. I'm still waiting.

Note that I haven't claimed that one side or the other actually has the correct procedure. I'll wait until I see something in writing from a definitive source before I make that decision.

You <b>may</b> right. You <b>may</b> also be wrong.

OK, if you're going to be that stubborn and make me post mechanics 101 show you how to add 2+2, I will type it all out. If you still don't think that is enough, I challenge you (or anyone) to cite anything that suggests these mechanics don't apply when a timeout is called.

Officials Manual #218

b. In the frontcourt, the throw-in is administered by the official responsible for the boundary where the throw-in occurs....

c. The new trail official shall administer all throw-ins in the backcourt and may need to change sides of the court...

Officials Manual #223

Diagram 18 (caption) For the administration of the throw-in in the frontcourt, the Lead official is responsible for the entire endline and the nearer sideline. The Trail official is responsible for his/her entire nearer sideline.... Each official will handle the throw-in our out-of-bounds play in the frontcourt along his/her designated lines.

Diagram 19 (caption) Trail official administers all throw-ins in the backcourt.

There are 5 more diagrams and captions the enumerate the different possibilities implied in #218.

And lastly, Diagram 24's caption (refering to a throw-in in the FC on the lead's sideline above the FT line extended.) says

This is the only non-foul situation in which officials will force a dead-ball switch.

The last statement makes it very clear that there is no switch on a timeout except for that one case. So, if the lead calls a timeout (where the throw-in will be on the endline) and goes to report, do you still assert that it may be possible that trail will go to the spot and administer the throw in? If they do, they've just switched on a dead ball...contrary to my last cite?

Yup, and what about <b>foul</b> situations? Why exactly is there a switch on one case and not others? If the lead calls a TO after making a foul call entailing FT's, why do the officials switch instead of following your proposed mechanic?

You'll find "timeouts" on page 44 in the Officials Manual. Note that "timeouts" is in a completely <b>different</b> section than anything that you have cited above. Note that <b>nowhere</b> under <b>"timeouts"</b> can you find any definitive mechanic listed similar to what you are claiming. Soooooo, cite me something <b>definitive</b> re: timeouts.

I don't have to <b>prove</b> anything. I'm not the one that is making any claims that my mechanic is right and someone else's mechanic is wrong. That would be you. And I hate to say it, but you still not have <b>definitively</b> proven anything about <b>timeout</b> mechanics. As I said, you <b>may</b> be right. You <b>may</b> be wrong.

Please let me know when you find something <b>definitive</b> re: <b>timeouts</b>. Right now, we're going in circles.

Btw, let the record show that personally I could really care less if 2 different officials handle this particular situation differently. It definitely ain't a biggie in the wondrous world of officiating.

Agreed about the importance.

Why is there a switch on fouls? Because the mechancs explicty say to switch on fouls.

What I've shown you is the definitive mechanics on who administers in the general case. I've shown a definitive statement that says the ONLY time a switch should occur is on a foul and on one specific throwin case. To suggest a switch can also occur with a timeout depeding on who calls the timeout is in direct contradiction to that very statement. Unless you can show a specific exception that says the cited mechancs don't apply, you have no basis to suggest anything is correct (or even might be correct) other than what I've posted.

The section on timeouts doesn't change who administers the throwin. That is covered clearly in the sections I cited. The timeout section refereces who administers with regards to where each official should stand but doesn't define or change who will be administering the throwin...so you use the part where it is defined.

Disagree.

Yawn.:)

Your stance is very Old-Schoolian! Presented with citations yet you refuse to believe them....prefering to hold on to the possibility that their might be something else, something else you suggest might be but are unwilling or unable to locate. You can't/won't reference anything that counters what I've cited. Show me where I'm either wrong or even show me somehing that even suggests I'm wrong. You've offered nothing useless but babble.

Old Schoolian? Babble?

I'm through discussing this with you. You still haven't <b>proved</b> a damn thing and I'll leave the name-calling to you also.

What if rainmaker emailed Howard and got his opinion? :D

Seriously?

He was on the FED rules committee and he's a state interpreter. I think that gives him a little more credibility than the average poster on this forum, including myself. Seeing that, unlike other posters in this thread, I haven't taken any position at all yet on this particular question, I sureashell would give credence to whatever his answer might happen to be.

Of course, it's still a "who really cares" discussion imo anyway. I could care less if different officials handled this in different ways. If someone wants to stand someplace during a TO to get a better angle to check out the cheerleaders, and he wants to force a switch to do so, hey, good luck to him. :D

Hmmmmmm........that does bring up any another critical question. If the Manual tells you to stand someplace, do you move for the cheerleaders if they wanna do a routine where you're standing? Or do you have to stand on that spot and let 'em run and jump around you?

That oughta be good for another 10 pages......

That's fine for you OS since you're usually working the big gyms (Rupp Arena, Dean Smith Center, Freedom Hall etc...). For the rest of us, a good gym is where over half of the lights in the scoreclock are working.

Fuel On Fire ???
 

I hate to add "fuel to the fire" of this post, and at the risk of making the situation even more complex, here's my IAABO "two cents". I realize that the majority of officials on this Forum are not IAABO officials, so those who are not affliated with IAABO can ignore this. IAABO switched from NFHS mechanics to IAABO mechanics a few years ago, and although they are very similar, there are some differences. In regard to time out mechanics:

2006-07 IAABO Crew Of Two Basketball Officials Manual, Page 63: "W. Officials do not switch postions during a timeout, positions are to be as prior to the timeout being granted."

I always just stand there and let them rub up against me while they're performing. ;)

Er, just the girls, not the boys. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. :p

BTW - don't argue with Camron. The dude knows what he's talking about. :)