Timeout to Vent

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That would confuse the heck out of me.

Yeah, I meant report the timeout.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Sorry, Tomegun. "To the table" for me is a euphamism for getting it reported. I'm not actually getting to the table. My procedure is similar to yours, although not necessarily as concrete (although it maybe should be), and I don't have a set number of times to ask (although I normally have an answer by the 2nd time).

How many times would you ask a coach what they want? We should keep in mind, the majority of coaches call the timeout and say what they want at the same time: Give me a thirty. If I know this, hit the whistle and then say, "Timeout white" what would my partners be doing? Besides watching possible players crossing, they are waiting to find out whether they should go to the top of the key or to the blocks. Since we want to make sure where the ball is placed anyway, I think it is also efficient to communicate to them the length of the timeout. I just do this in the name of communication and efficiency.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by tomegun

How many times would you ask a coach what they want? We should keep in mind, the majority of coaches call the timeout and say what they want at the same time: Give me a thirty. If I know this, hit the whistle and then say, "Timeout white" what would my partners be doing? Besides watching possible players crossing, they are waiting to find out whether they should go to the top of the key or to the blocks. Since we want to make sure where the ball is placed anyway, I think it is also efficient to communicate to them the length of the timeout. I just do this in the name of communication and efficiency.

I do this also, I'm just saying I hadn' thought about it in terms of a set MO. I don't keep asking, I don't recall asking more than twice, to be honest, and usually they signal when they ask.
As for my partners, I let them know as soon as I know, but have to admit I've regularly done it after telling the table. I like your way better and will use it tomorrow.

[jeffpea]

here's a thought....when trying to determine which T.O. a coach wants, just simply watch whether the players go the bench and sit or huddle around the coach on the court...then you've got your answer.

The "you never told me what you wanted so I charged you a full T.O." story will only cause you trouble that could easily be avoided by waiting just a few extra seconds.

Invariably, Coach A is upset as the other team goes on a 10-2 run and calls a T.O.; you charge him w/ a full T.O. (when he wanted a :30); now he's even more upset - starts yelling and you asess a T. Instead of it being A's ball, it's now a 12-2 run (after made FT's) and it's B's ball again (of course they score - so now it's a 14-2 run)......

The game just got screwy all becuase you couldn't wait a few extra seconds to see whether Team A was sitting on the bench or huddling around the coach. I would MUCH rather take 5-10 extra seconds to determine the T.O. than ruin the game being impatient.

You may disagree, and that's OK. I just think it's such an easy problem to avoid and it doesn't cost anything but a few extra seconds.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by tomegun

I talk in my pregame about timeout procedures. I will:

1. Grant the timeout
2. Find out full or 30
3. Tell my partners
4. Make sure we know where the ball is going to be inbounded
5. Report the timeout

Here's to another thing I learned on this forum that I implemented in my games. I'd never really thought about my process on reporting TOs before. So last night I followed tomegun's suggestions and, while not a big thing, it sure seemed to make for a consistent process.

We didn't have any issues with coaches not telling us what they wanted, which was nice, and this process was a great way to have a consistent routine.

I'm implementing it for all my games now.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

I would MUCH rather take 5-10 extra seconds to determine the T.O. than ruin the game being impatient.

You may disagree, and that's OK. I just think it's such an easy problem to avoid and it doesn't cost anything but a few extra seconds.

So the 30 is now a 40 and the full is.......just too long. This is probably the only thing that we mention in the pregame coaches conference that is significant every night. "When you call a timeout, let us see the 30 signal, or you will get a full." They do, and it's not a problem.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

here's a thought....when trying to determine which T.O. a coach wants, just simply watch whether the players go the bench and sit or huddle around the coach on the court...then you've got your answer.

The "you never told me what you wanted so I charged you a full T.O." story will only cause you trouble that could easily be avoided by waiting just a few extra seconds.

Invariably, Coach A is upset as the other team goes on a 10-2 run and calls a T.O.; you charge him w/ a full T.O. (when he wanted a :30); now he's even more upset - starts yelling and you asess a T. Instead of it being A's ball, it's now a 12-2 run (after made FT's) and it's B's ball again (of course they score - so now it's a 14-2 run)......

The game just got screwy all becuase you couldn't wait a few extra seconds to see whether Team A was sitting on the bench or huddling around the coach. I would MUCH rather take 5-10 extra seconds to determine the T.O. than ruin the game being impatient.

You may disagree, and that's OK. I just think it's such an easy problem to avoid and it doesn't cost anything but a few extra seconds.

I am not a mindreader. I ask twice and then it's a full. It's no problem, because I wouldn't let it become a problem.

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I am not a mindreader. I ask twice and then it's a full. It's no problem, because I wouldn't let it become a problem.

I like this response.

[BillyMac]

Our local interpreter has told us to refer to timeouts as "Sixty or thirty", not, "Full or thirty". Does anyone know why? We use NFHS rules, and IAABO mechanics.

[jeffpea]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I am not a mindreader. I ask twice and then it's a full. It's no problem, because I wouldn't let it become a problem.

So a timeout is little longer than it should be....so what. Coaches get mad at officials for a whole lot of different reasons - most of which we cannot control - during a game. This is a situation that is so easy to avoid.

BTW, having been thru the exact scenario I described in my previous post, I think it's best to ask which T.O. they want and if they don't let me know, I just wait to see whether they're sitting or standing and I've got my answer. When it happens to you, it will be interesting to see what the answer to the "what would you have done differently?" question you should ask after every game that includes a Technical.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

So a timeout is little longer than it should be....so what. Coaches get mad at officials for a whole lot of different reasons - most of which we cannot control - during a game. This is a situation that is so easy to avoid.

BTW, having been thru the exact scenario I described in my previous post, I think it's best to ask which T.O. they want and if they don't let me know, I just wait to see whether they're sitting or standing and I've got my answer. When it happens to you, it will be interesting to see what the answer to the "what would you have done differently?" question you should ask after every game that includes a Technical.

Some officials really don't care what coaches think. They also aren't afraid to enforce the rules if they run into a surly coach

Other officials are different.

If you feel that your way works for you, knock yourself out. Personally, I do what Rich does. Btw, we teach our officials to use Rich's procedure too. Why? Because that was what the FED directed us to do. Just saying.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Our local interpreter has told us to refer to timeouts as "Sixty or thirty", not, "Full or thirty". Does anyone know why?

Probably because your interpreter is a very anal person......

The term "full timeout" might not be found in the rulebook per se(I don't think, but I ain't looking), but the term also seems to enjoy a fairly common usage. Personally, I don't think that it's a hanging offense if someone does happen to use it.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Our local interpreter has told us to refer to timeouts as "Sixty or thirty", not, "Full or thirty". Does anyone know why?

Because that's what the rulebook calls it. Simple as that.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Because that's what the rulebook calls it. Simple as that.

And if you do say "full timeout", his head will explode.

I'm all for using correct rule book terminology if there is even a hint of any possible confusion, but I think that something like this isn't even worth bringing up. There's just too damn many other relevant things that are needed to be taught. JMVHGO.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jeffpea

So a timeout is little longer than it should be....so what. Coaches get mad at officials for a whole lot of different reasons - most of which we cannot control - during a game. This is a situation that is so easy to avoid.

BTW, having been thru the exact scenario I described in my previous post, I think it's best to ask which T.O. they want and if they don't let me know, I just wait to see whether they're sitting or standing and I've got my answer. When it happens to you, it will be interesting to see what the answer to the "what would you have done differently?" question you should ask after every game that includes a Technical.

If I am directly asking the head coach and he doesn't respond after I ask twice, he's ignoring me.

Sometimes a technical foul happens and I'm not going to spend waking moments wondering how to avoid all of them.

"Full or thirty, John? Full or thirty, John? It's a full. Full time out."