Timeout to Vent
 

Prior post almost covered my situation. 1st quarter of an uneventfull 8th grade boys game. Home team calls TO and as I go to report it, I look at the coach for a 30 or 60 option. He turns his back to me, so I walk closer and ask again as I approach. He tells the kids," everyone on the bench." Spins to me and says, "Full!..... and tell your partner I want to talk to him". I give him the stop sign and report the full TO and head to my floor position. I'm really not interested in having a head coach ask me to be his message courier. He barked something across the floor, but I really couldn't make it out. Told my partner about it during the quarter break, but we agreed, no sense in creating a commotion. I try to watch my partners back as much as possible.

Speaking of this, when I get in the angry coaches clutch and have to listen to a chewing, I always come over turn my body, perpendicular to them and continue this through the full, usually one sided convo. An occasional nod and a simple "I understand ". Sure, I've had one or two that we went in a semi, funny circle, but it works for me. I think most of the time, I avoid serious problems with the simple fact that I let them vent and acknowledge they were heard. If the convo turns defamatory, I stick-em.....

IMO, you shouldn't be taking a whole 60 TO full of coach venting. The TO should be for coach to talk to players about the game. Let the coach say a sentence or two, acknowledge their concerns and then head to position on floor. I definitely agree about your not serving as message courier for coach to partner!

It is a common policy around here, not officially supported anywhere as far as I know, to tell coaches before the game: Let us see the 30 signal, or you get a full timeout. This serves two purposes. It keeps the official from having to lean into the huddle for the answer, and it keeps at team from stretching the length of the timeout while we wait for the answer.

For the record and correct me if I'm wrong, I assign a full time out if a coach doesn't specify what length of time out they desire. It saves the hassel of trying to communicate with them and chase them around the players in some cases. Is this wrong?

Same here. If I don't get a signal or response by the time I get to the table, it's a full. I'm with rainmaker, on this also. Don't listen to the coach for 60 seconds. If he has a question or two, answer them. If he's venting, it's going to be very short.

I tell them at the coaches meeting to let us know which you want before we get to the table.


Timeouts are for talking to their team, not us...if they have a legit concern I'll listen and respond, if all they want to do is vent, I'm walking away. If they chase, physically or verbally, they are getting whacked.

I try to both remind at the coaches meeting, and then attempt to ask on the way to the table once. If they don't respond by the time I get there, they get the full.

I've always thought that of all the things coaches do, giving a simple signal about which TO they want would be one they would just automatically do to make sure they don't lose a full when they only want a 30.

Thanks JDW, this is how I will do it from now on. I have been getting tired of tracking down the coach after every request.

I'm down with giving the full TO if they don't respond...I do this too.....but how do you guys handle it when you report FULL TO and the coach says "I didn't want a full...I want a :30!" and now he's really peeved...

I had this happen to me once and I simply told the coach that if he does not specify verbally or through signal to one of the officials it will be charged as a full and to make sure next time he requests a TO that he make sure we are aware....

I had a guy last week asking for a TO by shouting "THIRTY!" at me...I looked cause I thought that's what he wanted (the TO) but did not blow the whistle right away thinking, He could be calling a play....I drew eye contact and he then signaled for :30 and said "timeout!". ;)

It's not wrong. That what one of the books says to do.

If they have a question, answer it. If they are venting comments at you, then get to the blocks and make it so they have to go back their team or get whacked. If the coach clearly ignores your question "full or 30," he's bought himself a full timeout. I ask twice, never a third time.

If you stay over by the coach and let him vent, you've made it so one of two things will happen:

(1) You stay there and you send the message to everyone in the building that he owns you. The other coach is watching, the players are watching, and everyone else is watching. The time out is for him to coach his players, period.

(2) You can't whack him without looking like the aggressor, or worse, looking like you were over there to bait him.

So call the time out, report it, answer any quick question, and turn and go to the block. If the coach follows you, now it is obvious to everyone who the aggressor is and if you have to whack him, it will be obvious to all that he had it coming.

The Good Book of Nevada? ;)

Ok, seriously....Is that in the NFHS rule or casebook?

I say "Coach, in the pregame I reminded you to let us know, and then I asked you on the way to the table, and by rule if you don't respond you're granted a full TO."

And then I go wherever I'm supposed to go.

From a POE in the 2001-02 Rules Book:

"It will still be the responsibility of the coach of the calling team to immediately signal to the official as to whether a 60 or 30-second time-out is being requested."

I've read more somewhere else, but can recall where at the moment.

There's nothing specific to this in the rules book, but it's been emphasized at rules meetings and to coaches in both states I've worked.

I'm now thinking that I saw an NFHS test question on this. I'll have to check my old tests. That's probably where I remember reading that it was the correct procedure.

Iirc correctly, it was in one of the "rules interpretations" that the FED posts annually on their web site. I usually print those out, so I might have it in a file someplace. I'll take a look later. We were definitely instructed though to charge a full TO if the head coach didn't immediately signal his preference.

Yeah, I took another look through the Rules and Case books and it's definitely not spelled out in there. Since it's how I've always been instructed (from the state) to do it, I've never really thought about where it is defined.

Would love to see the actual interp if it exists...

I just checked all of the Interps back through 2002-03 and it's not in any of those.

Loudwhistle, you posted this in reply to my post about not allowing a lot of venting from the coach. Did you mis understand what I was saying? Or just trying to move the topic forward?

I will ask twice, without going to the huddle, and then it is a full. I've noticed that several people mention hearing from the coach before they get to the table or it is a full. Do you realize your partners are floating in the abyss behind you? :)
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 foul

It took about 100 times longer to type that then it takes, but I do things this way so my partners don't have to wait for me to report the timeout before going to the correct spot. Also, it gives the teams time to go to the huddle before the timeout starts. Maybe this is just one of my small quirks, but I don't like to wander around waiting to find out what kind of timeout it is.

I'm a bit confused by your statement, Tomegun - I think all of us try to find the "full or 30" bit as soon as possible. The discussion is around a coach that doesn't give that information right away.

My process is almost exactly like yours, including making sure the opposing coach knows the type of TO as well. But the coach isn't always helpful in being able to do this...

Rainmaker,
I was just trying to move the topic forward, (still figuring out how to post with quote, without quote, etc,) finally getting the guts to jump into these great conversations! Love reading the posts, starting to find out that reffs are some of the wittiest and crabbiest (depending on the subject of course ) people around. I never realized scrapper was as old as that picture showed (grey haired guy with a beard showed up yesterday in a forgotten post). Its been fun learning about basketball and an elite group of people, my dad has been asking me for years, why would you ever want to ref so people can ***** at you? I tell him its just like elk hunting, very challenging with lots of action, plus I get to be in the game now that I'm to old to play. I live on a small island in Alaska and reffing is a good way to get unpopular real quick! We always have the same reffs (local guys) at our games, only the teams fly in or ferry in to play our highschool.

...then he gets a full. And if he didn't want one he or one of his assistants will be very quick to correct you.

JDW, this is sort of what I was talking about. How many times will you say "Thirty" or "Full?" I will say it twice every time. I'm going to say it the first time to let my partners know where they need to go - this occurs after I grant it and the coach tells me what he/she would like (or not). The second time is after we (the crew) communicate what length of timeout it is and where the ball is - then I report to the table (this is the second time).
When someone says a coach must tell them before they get to the table it make be think 1) they are going all the way to the table and 2) their partners are waiting until they report the timeout to the table to find out where they need to go for the timeout. Of course, there are many times where everyone knows what length the timeout will be, but not all the time.

I only say it once as a question to the coach if he/she doesn't signal me right away - although I try to get close enough to the coach that he/she should be able to hear me when I do. I signal it to my partners, and I also say it to the table, but that isn't what the question in this thread is...

So, do you not ask the coach at all? He/she either tells you or you just grant the full? Because if the coach doesn't tell you what he wants, you're going to have to ask him before you can tell your partners, or you're going to have to grant the full.

Sometimes I may get to the table before telling my partners. This could occur when I'm tableside and the call comes from the coach at the opposite end of the court. Most of the time I'm going to have gotten an answer prior to getting to the table if I'm coming from L or from the opposite side of the court.

My partners don't seem to have a problem waiting just a bit - they still find out before I report it. They usually pay attention to the players as they make their ways to the huddles, and then want to go to the appropriate spot.

I guess my confusion is simply, how do you follow your procedure and also find out what the coach wants if the coach doesn't signal or tell you right away?

I ask the coach. I thought the first thing I said was "I will ask twice, without going to the huddle, and then it is a full." Everything else, I posted because I noticed that it was mentioned about a coach telling the official before the official gets to the table.

Listen, I'm not telling you what to do or any of that. I'm simply telling you that a little communication will make sure your partners can go to their spots sooner. Sure your partners don't have a problem with it, you don't miss something you never had. Can you say that having information that allows you to move to the correct spot sooner isn't a good thing? For me it is all about crew cohesion. I want the crew to operate as smoothly as possible.

I got you now - I think we actually handle this pretty similarly. When you say you're asking twice without going to the huddle, I'm asking and looking for a response as I'm moving toward the table. I'd guess we're not that different in how we handle this.

Sorry for my confusion - I didn't put your the first post with "ask twice w/o going to huddle" and "once to my partners and once to the table" together.

Oh, and I never go into the huddle. Ever. It's not a friendly place. :D

That would confuse the heck out of me. :D

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).

Yeah, I meant report the timeout.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sixty Or Full
 

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.

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.

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

The term "full timeout" might not be found in the rulebook <i>per se</i>(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.

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

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

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.

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."

My partner and I include this with our pregame with the coaches. We tell them to please tell us right away how long of a time out they want otherwise it will be a full automatically.

It's one of the few extra things we say in our 20 second meeting with them.

Good for you. There is always more than one way to handle a situation....I bet if we both tried it "our" way and then the "other" way, we would find that both ways work....(of course I believe that making a "mountain out of a mole hill" isn't worth the trouble that it may cause - just my humble opinion).

BTW, assuming that the coach is ignoring you when you ask a direct question (there are other possibilities) is just like the coach assuming that you knew it was supposed to be a :30 timeout.

Coach to official: "I actually have to tell you what type of timeout I want? You mean you couldn't read my mind and tell that I wanted a 30 second timeout?"

Coach, I can read the scorebook and know whether or not you have a choice. I can't see into your brain to know which you might be choosing.