Big Sky Suspends 3 Men's Officials
 

From http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200....suspended.ap/ :
MY understanding of the play:
Montana secured a rebound with about 1 second left and requested a time out. The lead official knew that they were out of timeouts and ignored the request, however the C came in and got it. As he was hitting his whistle the horn went off. The C (who was also the R) met with his partners and said, I have a timeout simultaneously with the horn, we're going to disregard it and go to OT.

My question to you guys:
Are we correct in ignoring a request for a time out when we know a team is out of them?

Bonus points:
1 of these officials was suspended last year, who was it?

1 of these officials was selected to work both the men's and women's NCAA tournament last year and was told by Mary Struckhoff that he had to choose, he ended up working a 1st round men's game, who was it?

1 of these officials chartered a private jet in order to make an assignment last year, who was it?

If you can answer all 3, you win.

My question to you guys:
Are we correct in ignoring a request for a time out when we know a team is out of them? [/quote]

NO! Definitely not!

An official should not ignore the request, no matter what he knows or doesn't know. Did the guy confess about ignoring the request? If not, how do they know?

I believe one of them blew it dead going to grant the timeout. When they got together they decided the request was granted with the horn. In addition, they had the choice of going to the monitor and didn't.

Anyone still remember the 1993 Michigan/North Carolina NCAA championship game? That timeout wasn't ignored.

I love this play, because of the inherent discussion of "game management" vs. "rulebook" officiating that always occurs on this website.

This is a great example of why it is important to know both.

Here are my points:

1.) If I can get away with ignoring a time-out request by a player on a team that doesn't have one with one second to go in a tie game 84 feet from their basket, you are darn right that good game management dictates to do so and allow the game to go to overtime. We always talk about patient whistles. If I can be patient for one second- bang, time is expired, we're going to OT, and nobody cares.

HOWEVER

2.) Once that discretion has not been utilized, and one of the officials has put air in the whistle, it is too late to take it back. You HAVE to go to the monitor now, and if the whistle blew before time expired, you HAVE to grant the timeout and assess the technical foul and put the appropriate time on the clock.

It seems to me like they tried to have it both ways here and got burned for it. They didn't manage the clock well as time expired, and once they made that mistake, they didn't manage the rule book well either.

Following this logic, do you also ignore a last second foul?

This provokes another question. NFHS rules A1 requests a timeout with time running out in a tie game. The official definitely hears the request before the buzzer, but the buzzer sounds before the whistle. Nobody has definite knowledge of the time involved, but the request was definitely before the buzzer. What's the call?

I am going to protest my losing wager that was placed on Idaho St +3.5. I feel robbed.........lol

Is that what I said?

You didn't say, that's why I had to ask. You ignore one thing which should be a technical foul, I wondered if you would ignore anything else.

This press release and the NCAA rulebook tend to indicate that any one of the officials can go look at the monitor. Who's the final arbiter on whether you go to TV or not, though? What if U1 thinks the crew should review something, but R says they shouldn't?

I like your answer...
 

... not that you have a chance to think this play through! ;)

http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=32321

How many last second-minute fouls have you seen NOT called this year? NCAA or otherwise.

The prevailing thought is not to influence the outcome, let the players decide. But if a player fouls and it's not called, haven't we just influenced the outcome, something we loathe to do?

If a kid travels before making the winning basket, do you call that? What's the difference between that and not calling the foul to put the kid on the line?

All 3 on this crew are caliber officials.
One of the officials last year worked pretty deep in the tourney.
I don't like to drop names. I don't understand why in a play like that if you have the ability to go the monitor why not do it. Even if you are right, it's better to be safe than sorry.

My guess is that both of these will be POEs next year. We've seen the "desperation heave" 60 feet from the basket with .2 seconds left, and there's been contact (enough for a foul if this was a "normal 8' shot") that's been ignored. The OP is at least the second time an excessive TO request was ignored.

Go ask Chris Webber if we should ignore the request. All sarcasm aside, it's already been answered in this thread, but the answer is that we do not ignore the request. I look at it as maybe it's some kind of weird coaching strategy - I don't like it when coaches try to ref...so as a ref, I'm not going to try to coach a team and determine what on earth they're trying to accomplish. You want a timeout? You got it.

Bonus points:
Who cares? What are you trying to accomplish by singling these guys out? It's bad enough their names were mentioned in the article, so why rub salt into the wound?

A good question. Regardless of whether or not any official can look at the monitor, I'm wondering if it's the R that determines IF they're going to look at the monitor, and if so, WHO will look at it. So if the R decides, "No, we're not going to replay for this", then he is essentially putting the other 2 in a bad position. I'm not sure how the suspension process works or if officials are contacted prior to any suspension, but I would hope in your example, that U1 would be able to state his/her case, and that the other 2 would at least verify U1s request to go to replay which was eventually shot down.

I know in the conferences that I call in, when it comes to kicking a rule, you kick it as a crew, and you get suspended as crew. All for one and one for all.

[QUOTE=ma_ref]I look at it as maybe it's some kind of weird coaching strategy - I don't like it when coaches try to ref...so as a ref, I'm not going to try to coach a team and determine what on earth they're trying to accomplish. You want a timeout? You got it.
QUOTE]

I agree, especially in the NCAA-M's game. They may be actually trying to buy a timeout, especially when they get the ball back, unlike the women and Fed.

Would this be the camp to get a look see for Big Sky:
http://www.stripezone.com/sz/marlaDenham08.asp

JAR, please tell me how you would handle the following situations:

1.) You are working the first game of the year in your town's local 6-year old league. During a dead ball, Coach A says "Billy, you sub into the game for Johnny!" Billy jumps up and down, smiles at his grandparents who are in the first row of the bleachers, and runs straight out onto the floor without being beckoned.

2.) You are working a middle school basketball game. The home team has on gold jerseys that were worn by the high school varsity team 8 years ago.

3.) You are working your state's high school championship game. It is a tie game with 20 seconds remaining. A1 dribbles into a trap and is facing an enormous amount of defensive pressure. Coach A comes up the sideline to where you are trail officiating the play yelling "TIME OUT! TIME OUT!" As you glance to make sure the coach is requesting a time out, you notice he is two feet past the line of his coaching box.

You didn't grant a time out before time expired, so there is no time out.

That's the whole point. There was one second to go, be patient, make sure you saw what happened, and by then, time is expired and you don't have to worry about it.

If there were 5 or 10 seconds remaining, you would probably have to handle it differently.

Well, let me put in my 2 cents - the first two plays really have nothing to do with the OP, since they have to do with little kid's games. The 3rd play might be closer, but it is still HS vs. college. However, all of these plays revolve around a fairly simple principle - how do the "powers-that-be" want these plays called? In the kid's games, I'm sure most coaches, administrators, and assignors would want you to ignore these T's. In the HS championship game, I know in our state the officials assigned will have a meeting the night before with the state's head of officials and head clinician, and these types of situations will be discussed. The officials will know ahead of time whether the coaching box is to be strictly enforced to the letter, or what type of leeway will be allowed.

In the OP, it is still not entirely clear to me the L saw and ignored the request. It is not stated that way in the article, but it is mentioned as the OP's "understanding" of what happened. We do know, though, that the NCAA does not want a excess TO request to be ignored. We also know that what got the officials in trouble was not going to the monitor in this situation, to see if the request and therefore the T, was before the horn sounded.

M&M- we aren't disagreeing... none of those plays have to do with the original post. I was just irritated at JAR's needle of "what other things will you ignore?" I'm not talking about other situations- I am talking about THIS situation. If he wants to call a technical foul in all 3 of the situations I talked about, then he can be critical of those of us who see shades of gray situationally in the games we work.

Regarding the situation in the OP, I stand by my original statement.

1.) If there had been NO whistle as time expired, there would be no issues.

2.) If there had been a whistle, they had gone to the monitor to check the clock, and assessed a technical foul, there would be no issues.

By blowing a whistle, and then NOT going to the monitor to check the clock, there were major issues.

I would be fine with anyone who chose option 1 or option 2.

@ the NCAA level it is up to the "R" to go to the monitor, usually goes with the official that had the in question play. One of the "U's" can go to the "R" and request a monitor review for a play as long as it is a re-viewable by rule.

In the OP the "R" said that he knew that the T/O was @ the horn or after the horn & decides to ignore it and go OT. The fact that the "R" decided to rule this way doesn't remove the "U's" from the liability of kicking the rule.

One of the "U's" should have spoken up, if they didn't, and tell the "R" that they have to go to the monitor to see if there should be any time on the clock when the T/O was granted with the whistle. Now if the "R" says that he's not and he knows that there wasn't then in the leagues I work we are instructed to make a statement to the "R" along the lines of, "I want to go on record by saying that I don't agree with this ruling and that I think it should be such & such." The supervisor will be conversing with all 3 officials about the play. If that happens then the official that went on record with the other 2 probably would be excused from kicking the rule.

I have never had to give that statement since if one of us is giving information and says that they are sure their information is correct then why wouldn't the "R" accept it and react/rule appropriately? It leaves me to surmise that in the OP that the "U's" probably didn't give the information that they should be going to the monitor. Which would be why they all 3 got the game suspension.

Two of the officials concerned worked in the NCAA tourney last year. (Curry and Scofield) Neither of them worked "deep in the tourney." They both did first round games. Curry worked a game in Buffalo and Scofield in Chicago. Curry also worked a first round game in 2006.

Obviously, top notch officials though. I agree TRef no reason not to go to the monitor in this case just to be sure.

It is up to the R to make the final determination after going to the monitor, but I don't see anywhere in the books where the R is the only one who can decide to go to the monitor...there are specific guidelines as to when officials "shall" go to the monitor, and this situation certainly fell into those guidelines...that's why the crew was suspended - going to the monitor was NOT a judgement call in this situation.

So if they had gone to the monitor, and seen that the request was made with one second left, would they have been allowed to put one second on the clock and grant the time out? Or is the rule that the whistle is determinant?

.................

....................


grant the timeout

Yes they could put the one second back on the clock. Again - as I understand the situation - they were suspended for not going to the monitor to review as they should have...

I left out part of it.....
 

This provokes another question. NFHS rules A1 requests a timeout with time running out in a tie game. Team A has no timeouts remaining. The official definitely hears the request before the buzzer, but the buzzer sounds before the whistle. Nobody has definite knowledge of the time involved, but the request was definitely before the buzzer. What's the call?
__________________

No rules citation, just my opinion:

Regulation is over as there is no definite knowledge of how much time to put on the clock.

I gotta say this is probably how I'd handle it, too...but I'm not very confident I'd be right. Assume for a minute that a coach requests a timeout with approximately 3 seconds left. For some reason, the referee fumbles around with their whistle and isn't able to blow it until after the final buzzer (accidentally falls out of mouth; lanyard breaks and whistle goes to floor; etc...). Nobody has definite knowledge about how much time was left when the coach requested the TO. This is exactly the same situation, just perhaps a different reaction time from the ref.

Remember the buzzer does not mean the game is over. It's an audible signal to the officials that time has expired. I'm thinking common sense has to take over, as the referee definitely heard the TO request before the buzzer. In the original situation, I'm thinking you give the TO, and guesstimate the time (1 second, .5 seconds). Again, I'm not even positive this is right, but I just can't ignore the fact that the ref heard the TO request before the buzzer, and that tells me the TO is granted. The real problem comes with the remaining time determination. I can't seem to believe that "definite knowledge" of time supercedes the actual sequence of events.

My question involves the time difference between the request and the whistle. Is the time of the TO on the whistle or the request in NCAA?

After reading this thread and another thread, it sounds to me like the Big Sky needs to find a better training method to find their officials. ;)

Rut, you have hit the nail on the head. This is a situation where no one wanted to come across as NOT be a team player.

Unfortunately, your "common sense" could put your butt in a sling if you had to justify your call.

NFHS rule 5-10 explicitly says that you can't guesstimate. You can't put any time back on the clock unless you know the exact time to put back on.

I agree with you whole-heartedly, however something just seems wrong about the extreme case I theorized with. Coach calls TO *clearly* before the final buzzer goes off, I gotta believe we somehow give him the TO. There has to be some way around this.

Jeff, being a former West Coast resident, and still having lots of friends there, everyone knows the Big Sky is a joke. The assignor picks pretty people based on how they look physically, in the hopes that she can "train" them. She is so overbearing on the officials that many try directly for the WCC/WAC/Pac-10 and skip the Big Sky on the way up.

Philosophically, I agree with you. Unfortunately, "right" doesn't always equate to "correct" when it comes to the rules.

No, actually your post is a joke. The Big Sky tryout camp generally sells out in less than an hour. Some incredible refs would give their eye teeth to get into that league. Several excellent Pac-10 officials work the Big Sky.

From what I have heard, the official closest to the play knew the time-out request was well prior to the horn and was choosing to ignore it. To me, that is mistake #1. Many officials have the philosophy to let the horn run out rather than stepping up and making the tough call. I disagree with that philosophy, but I am generally outvoted when that discussion comes up.

Another "philosophy" here on the West Coast with many college officials is to NEVER tell the teams how many time-outs they have. To me, preventative officiating means that we tell the players and the coaches when they come out of their huddle that they are out of time-outs. That usually prevents the nightmare that happened here. But hey, I get outvoted on that one too.

IMO, as long as there are assignors who preach their own philosophies rather than letting players decide games, officials are always going to get themselves into trouble by trying to do what they think their assignors would want rather than just officiating the game that presents itself.

I heard the editor of Referee Magazine speak once and he referred to assignors like that as "power brokers" who think they have a higher vision of what the game should be rather than sticking to the rules. He said it's very damaging to the integrity of the game.

I'm sure that any open tryout for a D-1 conference would sell out in an hour. But then again, nobody else does that. It's a money grab. No disrespect to the guys who work that conference, but I'm fairly certain that if they had other choices, they'd take them. Glad you went to that camp, though. Going again?

Never been to the camp. I know guys who have. Only the best of the best get picked up for D-1, especially in the Northwest where there aren't as many opportunities (including D-1) as there are in many other parts of the country. No disrespect, but the have-nots always want want the "haves" have.

Unless something has changed in recent years:

1. The Big Sky camp does not "sell out" in less than an hour.
2. The west coast, like almost ever other area, does not always hire the best of the best for D1. I know this for a fact.

Unfortunately this isn't a "SHALL" monitor play, it is a "MAY"... 2-13-2 C3. The "SHALL " plays are fighting, foul @ expiration, made basket @ end of regulation. According to the CCA Manual it is up to the "R" to initiate the monitor review while the "U's" are explaining what is going on to both coaches.

If you have a play that you believe is re viewable then the proper procedure is to relay that information to the "R." The "R" will confirm that the play is re viewable then go to the table and initiate the review. The "R" dones the headphones while reviewing the play with the partner(s) (usually the partner who had the in question play while the other is keeping an eye on the players & floor.)

If in the OP the "R" says that he is sure that the whistle was @ the horn or after, and that they are going to ignore the T/O and go OT then the "U's" should state that they should be go to the monitor to check the time. If the "R" still disagrees then the "U's" can say that they disagree and that they are sure that they should go to check for the timing mistake. IMO, if the "R" still disagree (Not that they would) then the "U(s)" have done what they could and have said that they disagree and gave the proper information. If the "R" doesn't take it then that would be on them.

I just can't imagine a "R" disagreeing with his partners if they were to have said, "we should be going to the monitor to check the time." What sounds like happened is that the "R" who made the call said he knew that the whistle was @ the horn so they were going OT & neither one of the partners stepped up and said that they should be going to the monitor to check for a timing error. This, IMO, is probably why they all lost a game.

According to the CCA Manual it is upto the "R" to make the final ruling on a reviewed play. Although there is nothing in the CCA manual that says a "U" can't initiate the monitor review it just wouldn't be recommended if for some unknown reason the "R" doesn't think the play is re viewable. All the partner can do is emphatically state that he/she knows that they should be going to the monitor. If that would have happened I'm sure the "R" would've went. It just doesn't sound like from the read that is what happened.

I don't @ all agree with the fact that they didn't go to the monitor be sure. I had a supervisor tell me once that even if you know you are 100% correct why wouldn't you still use the monitor, if it was available, to concrete the ruling? If you have a play that "may" be looked @, then look @ it to be sure. That is what this crew should've done, imo. If the "U(s)" would've stepped up and made sure that they reviewed the play then we wouldn't be discussing this right now. Someone missed the chance to save the crew.

Edit: After reading the article once more I can see where this could be a "SHALL" review since one of the officials might have, according to the OP, known that the team was out of T/O's. This could be defined as foul @ the expiration of time since the granted T/O would result in a "T." However I do believe they could've went to the monitor no matter what to check and see if there was time on the clock when the T/O was granted.

On the whistle. The ball doesn't become dead until the whistle blows. The request time doesn't mean anything. It's when the T/O is granted, whistle blown. In the OP if they would've went to the monitor and were able to see/hear that the whistle happened with time on the clock then they would have to add time, grant the T/O and penalize with the "T" & continue @ POI.

I do not know about the best of the best always get hired. First of all many guys that work D1 are not that much better than a lot of officials that do not get picked. They either are in the right place at the right time; they have the right people pulling for them to get hired. And sometimes people that attend multiple times, which many people are not willing to do also help.

Look, these are job interviews and the people are hired are based on need and opportunity. Some people are going to get hired and they will not be the best in everyone's eyes just like anyone else hired at any other job.

Peace

OK, time's up. Nobody gave the answer I was looking for. As I read it, this would be a technical foul, whether the ref got any air in the whistle before the buzzer or not. 10-1-7 states that a team shall not "request an excessive time-out." No mention of granting the timeout.

I don't think this is as big an issue as is the issue of how much time do you put on the clock? Or are you saying that we give the T, and if the free throws could affect the outcome of the game, shoot them, and then game-over/OT? Assume it was a tied game, team B hit the 2 tech FTs, so now they're up by 2. You *know* team A coach is going ballistic asking how they can get charged a timeout with 0:0.0 remaining. He'll say naturally if we grant the timeout, then it had to have come before expiration of the game clock.

I fully agree with you about granting the TO, and giving the T as a result...but my problem comes with how much time to put on the clock (if any). I don't think the best used-car salesperson in the world could try and sell that "no-time-left" explanation to the coach.

Sorry! I read past your post. I don't agree with this. It can't be a T/O until it is actually granted by the official. If the official never blew the whistle to acknowledge the T/O & time expires then there isn't a T/O, and since the T/O wasn't acknowledged then its not a excessive T/O just because the coach is requesting a T/O doesn't mean that we can grant it.

What if HC B team requests a T/O, when they have none left, while the A team has the ball? The officials don't obviously grant the T/O since the B team doesn't have the ball. According to your logic you would still pin the BHC with a "T" just for the request.

The request has to be granted in order for it to be a used T/O.

Case play 10.1.7....request & granted...

The request for timeout and the granting of the timeout are two different things. The granting (whistle) stops the clock, not the request by the coach. If the granting or attempt to grant (whistle) comes after no time on the clock, after the horn, then you can't have a time out or a technical foul. (R6.7.5&6)

In your scenario, "technical whether the ref got any air in the whistle or not" under 10-1-7 team shall not request an excessive time-out. If the ball is loose with no team control, Team A is trying to call timeout to stop the clock and you are aware team A has no timeout, which shouldn't matter whether you grant the timeout, you couldn't grant the time out because there is no team control, but in your application of the rule, you would issue a technical foul because they attempted to request an excessive timeout. IMO that's not the correct application of the rule.

It did last year. I don't have statistics to track past years. :)

We all have our opinions on who is best. The assignors hire who they think will do the best job for them. Those who don't get hired often have excuses.

This was what I intended in opening this up for discussion. As written, the request is what earns the technical. Period. 10-1-7 makes no mention of granting the timeout. Also, on another thread regarding granting a timeout quickly before the player landed out of bounds, several people here stated that the granting of a time out was a mental act which occurred instantly when the request was recognized, and had nothing to do with when the whistle sounded afterward. So, if one accepts these things, how can it not be a T if an excessive timeout is requested before the buzzer? Is it another one of those "just cuz" things?

You're making my point regarding Requesting vs. Granting. If A1 or coach requests a timeout, excessive or not, simultaneously at the buzzer or a millisecond before the buzzer and the buzzer goes off before I can grant the timeout, excessive or not, I'm not granting the timeout. If a player requests timeout before he commits a violation then I am granting the timeout before the violation. The whistle is already in my mouth and should take a millisecond to put air in it. I had a sitch last week in a regional semi-final game. I'm administering the throw-in and I complete my five in my five second count, at the same time I blow my whistle for the violation, the player inbounding requests a time out. I have a violation.

What does 6.7.5&6 have to do with this?

What is your point? The request is simple enough. When a timeout is granted is a gray area which is not specified very well.

R.5-8-3 should take care of that gray area for you.

That specifies when and how the ball becomes dead via the Officials Whistle (article 5) and end of the period (article 6). It doesn't become dead at the sound of the coaches or players voice when requesting a timeout.

Consider each player to be Chris Webber.

I think I disagree with a couple of your points.

First, you are right that the "request" doesn't stop play, the "granting" does. When does that "granting" actually happen? That has been debated in the past, but I contend it's when I mentally grant it, not specifically when the whistle blows. That can be backed by a rule fundamental: The official's whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead, because it is already dead. So, the TO has been granted even though my whistle hasn't blown. In "real-world" plays, most of the time, the TO being granted and the whistle blowing are pretty close to simultaneous. But I'm sure you've seen the play at the end of a close game where one team scores, then try to call TO before the other team gets the ball in play, and the whistle blows as the pass in the air. That's because the official had to verify the request was legal, as per 5-8-3 (team-control, at disposal, or dead ball), and therefore granted the TO even though the whistle might be a moment later.

There is a case play, 10.1.6, that states an official has knowledge that the team had six players participating, but cannot get the clock stopped. The ruling is a T is called even though the official didn't get the clock stopped in time. The ball became dead with the official's knowledge, not when the whistle blew. Therefore, in this case, the TO was granted, even though the whistle didn't blow in time.

If it's a legal request, per 5-8-3, we're supposed to grant it. If it's not a legal request, then we're supposed to ignore it.

No, you don't grant the request because it is not a legal request, as per 5-8-3, not just because they don't have any left to call.

This is exactly what I said in the earlier thread. http://forum.officiating.com/showthread.php?t=30448

Everybody else here rolled their eyes when I suggested this. If this is true, when the airborne player requests a timeout then lands out of bounds before the whistle/signal, he commits a violation. The consensus was that when the official recognizes the legal request, it is considered to be instantly granted, so the interval before the signal is irrelevant, and no violation. If all this is true, if I recognize a timeout request before the buzzer, and the team has no timeout, how can it not be a technical?

Your right it is seldom but not never. There is nothing in rule 6 that says the ball is dead when the coach/player request a T/O legal or otherwise or when it is observed, heard or recognized. Its when the whistle blows granting the T/O.

The granting of the T/O by blowing the whistle is what causes the ball to become dead. To grant the T/O you would blow the whistle. Rule 6-7-5. You can't assume that the mental "granting super cedes the actual whistle granting." To say so would open up a whole lot of other stitch's as far as dead ball contact plays & timing corrections.

I see your point as far as a player calling T/O while in the air then lands before a whistle. The ball isn't dead while the player is requesting a T/O in the air it would be dead on the landing OOB or by the whistle. I have never blew my whistle after a player has landed and granted a T/O. If I'm so late in granting a T/O that the player clearly lands OOB then I'm calling the player OOB. Its like you said that its almost instant in blowing the whistle in plays like this.

I disagree. Its recognized but not granted until the whistle blows. I just can't agree that its granted as soon as you hear it. The actual whistle has to be the granting and the key to decide if the ball is dead and if there is going to be a timing correction

I have seen that play several times and am not sure that we are correct in granting the T/O after the ball is @ the disposal of the other team. So are you going to go back and reset the clock since your saying that the T/O was granted on the request & not the whistle? Of course not. If a coach calls a T/O and you look up & see 15 seconds then as you blow your whistle the clock stops @ 14 are you going back and adding the second since the request was @ 15?
Good point but wrong sitch. The difference is that the act happened by the 6th man coming on the floor and becoming a legal player. Its a automatic "T" once its recognized by the official(s) so the ball became dead on the recognition of the infraction (T foul) by the official. The foul causes the ball to become dead not the whistle in this case play.

There's nothing in the rules that states the ball becomes dead on the request of the T/O. It can't because we have to be sure that we can grant it. Once we realize we can grant and blow our whistle the ball becomes dead on the whistle. What if the ball is loose and the coach calls an excessive T/O, times runs out. Are you going back and whacking the coach because you heard the request? I don't think you would. Therefore if you can't go back and get this then you can't possible say that the T/O is granted mentally first then by the whistle. I think case play 10.1.7 is pretty clear on when it is or isn't a "T"
This statement solidifies why you can't say that the request is the key to the "T". Very simply because you have to make sure it is a legal request. It sounded like you were saying the the request would be "T" if it was excessive but only if the request was legal. If you were correct why would it matter since it was a request? It has to be when we physically grant it and not when we mentally grant it. The ball isn't dead until the whistle blows when granting the T/O.

I do not agree with much of your posts but I do want to present a situation with your above thought process regarding "mentally" granting the timeout. You're the L, A1 calls the timeout right in front of you at the split second, almost simultaneously of the horn going off, you hear it and mentally register it as hearing the word time or timeout right at the buzzer, buzzer goes off, T who has last second shot responsibility blows whistle to end the game almost simultaneously when you blow yours for the timeout, are you going to tell your partner that you mentally had the timeout because A1 called one a split second prior to the buzzer? I think this was asked earlier in the thread, but how much time would you consider putting on the clock, .01, .00?

I apologize if this topic was debated before and we're going over old stuff.

You're kidding us right. Some of those who don't get hired have excuses, some have reasons. We all know people get hired for a variety of reasons. Looks, gender, who you know, are just a few of the reasons people get hired, or not hired.

So to suggest that the best are the only ones hired seems a little naive.

I slightly modified your post for you, in the interest of accuracy.

I agree with the previous post'er. Reality is much, much different. If this truly is the case where you live, then tell me where you are, because I'm moving there.

We agree.

Actually, the complete wording of 6-7-5 says the "The ball becomes dead, <B>or remains dead</B> when...(Art. 5) an official's whistle is blown." Add that to the Rules Fundamental #16 - "The officials' whistle seldom causes the ball to become dead; it is already dead." This is also backed up by the case play 10.1.6, that actually tells us that we still act upon the "action", and we still make the call, even though the whistle didn't blow in time. All of these things together make it pretty clear to me that it is not the whistle that causes the ball to become dead, it is the "action". In the case play, the "action" is a foul; in our sitch, the "action" is the official granting the TO. The whistle is simply a signal to let everyone know. Can you give me any rule or case play backing that says granting a TO is done only by blowing the whistle?

In the example of the player falling OOB while requesting a TO, if you somehow didn't have the whistle in your mouth, would you not grant the TO simply because you didn't blow the whistle before they landed OOB? I would grant the TO in this case. Even better, would they not be considered OOB when they landed because you didn't blow the whistle? Of course not.

This simply brings in time and "definite knowledge" principles. If we replace the TO request with a common foul before the bonus, or a violation, what would we do? We may know the request, foul, violation, or whistle happened before the horn, but if we do not have definite knowledge as to how much time to put back up, then the period has ended. If we do have definite knowledge, then we put that exact amount back on the clock and grant the TO or penalize the violation or foul.

Your reasons might be someone else's excuses. If I get hired by a conference, it's because I think I deserved it. Someone who didn't get hired may say it's because I "looked right" or knew someone. Same thing if I work a state championship game. We can make excuses or we can go get what we want.

We don't agree!!! Your saying the ball was dead already before the whistle was blown to grant the T/O. I completely disagree with that.

Becomes dead when granting a T/O with the whistle. Is dead already when a FOUL happens before the whistle as outline in RULE 6-7. Big difference between the two the "action" of the FOUL has nothing to do with the action of the request.
Seldom doesn't mean NEVER. It would be dead when a FOUL happens. According to rule 6-7 this would be dead without a whistle . Its not already dead or dead when a request of a T/O is recognized. If it was then it would be listed in Rule 6-7.
We act on the action if it is a FOUL. This case play has to do with a player who illegally enters, becomes a legal player, when recognized by the official on the floor would be a FOUL, dead ball(Technical) Rule 6-7 states that the ball is dead when a FOUL happens. Your using a foul case play to validate your claim that the ball becomes dead when we hear/see a request for a T/O. These two have nothing to do with one another. Again Case play 10.1.7 clearly states that there has to be a request and then it would have to be granted.
Only in the situations listed in Rule 6-7. The action of the Foul being listed. Nothing @ all mentioned about the "action" of the requesting. If that was the case then 10.1.7 would only say the the request is relevant.
Rule 5-8-3. The timer would stop the clock when the T/O is granted. In order for him to stop the clock there would have to be a whistle. This tells me that the granting is the whistle. When is the T/O granted? How does the timer know when to stop the clock? When does the ball become dead? In this situation ,thats not a foul, when the WHISTLE blows.

First of all I would NEVER have my whistle out of my mouth. But for the sake of this debate lets say it slips out while the player is falling OOB. I guarantee you that I will be quick enough to get the whistle in my mouth with air coming out before the player is CLEARLY OOB.

You keep listing dead ball plays that are all listed in Rule 6-7. The OOB play being specifically listed in Rule 6-7-9. So your right the play would be OOB with a DEAD ball when the violation happens, dead before the whistle. In all of the situations listed in Rule 6-7 except for the whistle the ball is dead without a whistle. The T/O request isn't listed so the only way the ball can become dead is with the WHISTLE.

This just simply isn't handled the same way a foul or violation is as far as when the ball becomes dead. The whistle is the key to the T/O situation. If in the OP they would've went to the monitor they would have put the time on the clock that was visible when the whistle blew not when they see a visual signal or when they hear the coach call it.

Gimlet25id - to save some time, I'm not going to go through all the quotes, but let me address some specifics:

First, we do agree that the TO doesn't happen on the request. I have never stated it does; I have always agreed the TO happens on the granting. It is a two-step process - the coach/player makes the request, the official grants. The question is when does the granting occur? I contend it is when I say/think "Yes, I am granting this TO request". Usually, I blow the whistle and signal for the clock to stop at that moment. In rare instances, the whistle doesn't get blown at the exact moment. The question between us is whether the granting occurs only at the whistle, or at my physically/mentally saying "Yes, granted." The rule only says granted, and there is no direct connection between "granting" and "blowing the whistle", other than you blow the whistle as a signal to the timer to stop the clock, because you are granting a TO request.

I contend there are many instances that allow for the ball to become dead, even though the whistle hasn't blown. I am making that assumption from the various rule and case statements allowing for that. You are saying that granting a TO request isn't specifically listed in 6-7 as a way for the ball to become dead, like it would for a foul or violation. I agree, I am using a slight leap to get to my conclusion. But you are also using a slight leap to get to your conclusion the granting <B>only</B> happens at the whistle.

In the example of the player falling OOB, you didn't answer my question directly about whether you would still allow the TO if you didn't get the whistle blown before the violation. In that case, if for some reason I didn't get the whistle blown, but I knew the request was legal according to 5-8-3, I would still grant the TO. I would sell the heck out of the call, but no one would argue the TO should not happen <B>only</B> because I didn't blow the whistle in time. What if a player bumped into you at that moment, knocking the whistle out of your mouth, and you didn't get back in your mouth in time? Do you not grant the TO? Would it make a difference if it was a teammate of the player requesting TO? How about an opponent? Would you tell Coach A, "Sorry, I can't grant the TO because B1 knocked the whistle out of my mouth, and I couldn't get it blown soon enough."?

I agree in priniciple with your general philosophy.

Having said that I believe we can agree that "going and getting what you want" as a philosophy does have limitations. The examples I could list are numerous.

This debate has been hammered out lots of times before so.....

I still see some hiring done on good ole boyism, gender, race, looks, etc.

To suggest it doesn't happen just seems to me a little "idealistic".

Can a moderator delete/alter Chess Ref's post above? It isn't so much that he/she said anything offensive as much as it is a question I think should be asked will get the thread locked anyway.

So if you recognize the request of an excessive timeout and the buzzer beats your whistle, do you call this a technical or not?

We are obviously going to agree to disagree on this. I think the rules are pretty clear, although one has to look in a couple of different places to make the determination.

As stated before, Rule 5-8-3 "...Grants a player's/head coach's oral or visual request for a T/O..." The timer has no idea if you mentally granted it first. In fact since the clock won't stop until you blow your whistle, nor the ball won't/can't be dead in this instance until you blow your whistle then it certainly stands to reason that the granting of the T/O is on the whistle. The whistle would be the signal that alerts everyone involved that play is dead, the time should stop, and when the clock should stop.

If your saying that you mentally grant first and acknowledge it second with the whistle implies that you think the ball is dead or would have to be dead when you mentally grant the T/O. If you believe the ball to be dead then your saying that in the OP play with time running out, you hear the HC call the excessive T/O, you mentally "grant" it, horn goes goes off, & you blow your whistle there should be a penalty. Are you seriously saying that your going back to penalize the excessive T/O and adding time back on the clock since you mentally granted it first even though th whistle didn't sound before the horn?

The answer has to be NO!!! Which has been my point all along with the ball not being dead until the whistle blows regardless if you think you mentally granted it first. There is absolutely nothing in the rule book anywhere that says the ball would be dead when an official hears the request and mentally grants it. In fact Rule 6-7 lets us know with out a doubt what makes the ball dead, in this case it would be on the whistle.

So if the ball isn't dead until the whistle then along with Rule 5-8 & 6-7, & the officials manual page 44 & under the diagram on page 45 gives us all of the info we need in order to rule correctly on the play. Page 44 covers the T/O procedures, sounding of the whistle, when not to "GRANT" and so on. Page 45's diagram gives the verb-age of, "when a T/O is granted the official shall...."

Like I said in my last post. If in the OP the crew went to the monitor to check the time, if they were to add time back, they would be looking for time on the clock when the WHISTLE was sounded, not on any visual signal from the coach or when the official said he heard the request. That would be the only way to do it since the whistle is what caused the ball to be dead.

Your case play 10.1.6 was totally different because it was a actual foul which by rule 6-7 causes the ball to be dead on the action of the foul. So if in the OP they had a foul @ the end of regulation then they would be adjusting the time to when the action of the foul happened and not the whistle. In FED basketball we don't have that luxury because we don't have courside monitors to use so all we can look for is that the clock stops correctly on the whistle.
I don't believe it to be a leap on my part. The thing I do know for sure is that the ball doesn't become dead when granting a T/O until you blow your whistle. That is specifically covered in Rule 6-7-5. To agree with your conclusion would have to mean that I think the ball is dead when we mentally grant the T/O and not on the actual whistle. Since I know that conclusion isn't rule supported, I have to believe that the actual granting is on the whistle.

I see your point here, even though it is extremely unlikely that it would ever happen. If this 1 in a million play happens then I'm like you, I would feel compelled to grant the T/O. My verb-age to the opposing coach would be that as I was starting to put air in the whistle so & so knocked my whistle out of my mouth.

I really don't think that would ever happen, although not impossible, but if it does then I'm going to sell the hell out of the call and explain accordingly. With that being said the ball still wouldn't be dead until the sounding of my whistle or if the player landed OOB. It would then be up to me how I would handle the request, bump/body block, losing whistle play.

Edit; In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter when either you or I think the T/O is granted, mentally or on the whistle. The important thing to realize in this play is that I can't make a timing correction unless the whistle was clearly before the horn. If I don't have the whistle before the horn the the ball was dead @ the horn and before the (As you believe) signal of the T/O was given. There is nothing in the rules that allow us to go back and add time just because we heard the request before the horn went off unless we had a whistle before the horn which makes the ball dead, RIGHT THEN.

Gimlet25id - let's look at my example play again. You agree that you are granting the TO before the violation, even though there was some unusual reason you didn't get the whistle blown in time. If the ball <B>only</B> becomes dead on your whistle, you would have to not allow the request. Period. Case play 5.8.3 SIT. D tells us the TO request by an airborne player with control <B> is granted</B>, but nowhere is the stipulation that it is granted only if the whistle is blown in time.

Let's look again at 5-8: Time-out occurs and the clock, if running, shall be stopped when an official:
Art. 1 Signals:
a. A foul
b. A held ball
c. a violation

What's missing? d. A time-out. That's not mentioned until Art. 3: Grants a...request for time-out. That tells me that the "granting" is different than the "signal". Yes, when we grant the TO, we blow the whistle to tell the timer to stop the clock. But the signal to stop the clock is a separate event. The same theory with fouls and violations - the whistle doesn't cause the ball to become dead, the foul does. Even case play 10.1.6 tells us a foul should still be penalized even though the whistle didn't blow in time.

Now, does that case play apply to TO requests and grantings? Debatable (which we're obviously doing :) ). But in the OP, it is an excessive TO request, which <B>is</B> a technical foul. Therefore, that case play applies directly to this sitch.

So, first, do we try to ignore an excessive request? 5-12-2 gives us that answer: "Time-outs in excess of the allotted number may be requested and <B>shall</B> be granted...at the expense of a technical foul." Not maybe, perhaps, or possibly, but definitely. So, we have to acknowledge and grant any excessive TO requests, no matter when they occur.

Now that puts us at the end of the period/game. Why would it be treated any differently than a foul at the end of a period or game? We need to know if the foul/TO granting happened before the end of the period. If not, there is no legal request, therefore we ignore it. If so, we need to have definite knowledge if there's any time to be put back on the clock. But we cannot simply ignore the request because we know it would be excessive.

Big Sky Camp
 

Speaking of Big Sky Camp, I was thinking of attending and would need to register quickly. Does anyone have some insight to the conference and the camp that could help me with an attendance decision????

Oh well...

Can you tell me how you think race is reflected in the current college basketball hiring process?

Not My Fight, But ...
 

I am not an NCAA official, nor have I ever considered being one. That said, some officials that I know who work NCAAM Division I ball, or some who want to work NCAAM Division I ball, tell me, their words, not mine, that the NCAA is looking for young, athletic looking, black, men to work their NCAA Division I men's games. Is there discrimination based on age, appearance, race, or sex? I don't know. I hope not. I'm just reporting what we're hearing in my part, and on my level, of the officiating woods.

M&M...What a discussion!!! Lets just agree to disagree...I just don't think that the rule book will allow you to go back and penalize a excessive T/O request made before the final horn, after the horn went off, either with/without a whistle after the horn.

Apparently the Big Sky disagrees with you.

No I can't . I can tell you what I have heard. Now I know this is not scientific evidence but it's what "the story" is.

Well respected woman official, D2, Occasional D1 schedule,who is African-American is encouraged to recruit more African-American women to the local HS Assoc. She does. One lady sticks past her first year. They move her up,put her in the high profile games....and take a guess...she is not developing like they had hoped. SO now it looks like they are stuck with her, and her high profile schedule, not improving like they hoped, and they don't seem to know what to do with her.

So I know she was hired on race and gender. Does it bother me , not in the least. DO I care, nope. Will it impact my schedule, nope. I came into this in my early 40's so its not like I'm going to the Vegas camp and get hired by the PAc 10.....

I was also a little confused on why you thought my other post needed to deleted. I wasn't trying to be offensive. I wasn't trying to be anything, really. Jusy giving my thoughts on a topic.

I said that because what you and another poster said may be true, but my TV is on college basketball a lot and...

But Jamie Luckie is on doing the WV/Pitt game and he is good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Apparently your clueless about what you can actually go to the monitor for!!! They should've went to the monitor to see if when the WHISTLE was blown that there was TIME still on the clock. If there was then they should've granted the T/O and added the appropriate time on the clock, assessed the "T" and shot the throws.

Just a suggestion...read the OP!

Seeing that Brad is a D1 official, I kinda doubt that's true.

Timing under Rule 2.

Art 2. Officials may use such available equipment only in the following situations:
c. Timing
3. Determine the correct time to be placed back on the game clock when the referee blows the whistle, signals for the game clock to be stopped, and in his/her judgement time has elapsed before the game clock stopped.

That's correct, but doesn't seem to agree with what you wrote earlier...

Oh ... and I did read the OP, but if you think I read all 6 pages of what followed you would be wrong :)

Good catch, I thought the same thing. Maybe Gimlet will come back and say what he really thinks.

That's perfectly clear to me and completely different from why the Big Sky suspended their officials, and I agree with Gim's statement.

I tried to find a picture of Jamie, no luck, but I'll assume he's black. I found his schedule.From his schedule I can only assume he's good and I'm not worthy to carry his bag into his schedule. :)

It seems to me that we're talking about 2 different things here. My statement is people get hired for a variety of reasons. I stand by my statement. I know it to be true.

My internet gut is you want to pigeonhole me into the argument " that all black refs got hired because of their race."

I never said that, I don't believe that. Now I could be wrong about my internet gut but I don't know cause you haven't really said what your issue is with what I said.

I'm starting to feel like a dog chasing his own tail..:cool:

My interpretation:

Tomegun didn't want this thread to head on the down-ward spiral that usually occurs when race (like gender) is brought up in this forum.

Me, I believe race sometimes plays a subtle role in the decision-making process. (notice I'm not saying in favor or against any particular race; and notice I said "sometimes") But everyone has their own perceptions and no one's mind is going to be changed arguing back-and-forth in this forum. The history of locked threads will prove me right on that point.

BTW, Jamie Luckie is White...but he has many Black friends. :D

I'll clarify.

You can't go back and penalize an excessive T/O request that was made before the horn went off, after the horn goes off ,if you either blew your whistle after the horn or never blew it @ all. In order to get the excessive T/O "T" the whistle would've had to be sounded before triple 0's on the clock in order to assess the penalty and add time.

M&M seemed to say that as long as you heard the request and "mentally" granted it before the horn, that you could go back after the horn and penalize the excessive T/O with a "T" even though you might not have sounded your whistle @ all. He seemed to assert that as soon as you "mentally" granted the T/O that the ball was dead. I disagreed, thus the reason for the above quoted post.

6 pages...too much..I agree. However if you would've had the time to read the novel then the context of the in question post would've been some what clearer.

Sounds good to me. Though I'm even more confused by the Jamie comment. It could be that I'm just confused.

Race was only 1 of 6 reasons that I mentioned.

Oh well there is the Girls Ball versus Boys ball thread going on.;)

From Colleague ...
 

I sat with a fellow high school official at a state quarterfinal game a few nights ago. He is also a NCAA Womens Division III official. He told me that he has been told by the higher ups in his association that he cannot expect to move up as quickly as female officials in his association.

This comes as no surprise. I've seen some really strange rankings in NCAA regional polls and the disparity seems to be that the womens' teams coached by men sometimes get ranked poorly. Site selections (based on those rankings) for regional tournaments are surprising too.

Now let me get this straight. You are saying that those who vote for team rankings in NCAA-W are factoring in whether or not the coach of the team is male or female? Do I have that right? Are you serious?:rolleyes:

OK, I will explain myself. I have heard the notion that black guys are needed and get hired. However, there are relatively few black guys doing the TV game - I'm talking about comparing them to other officials. Even when you talk about those black guys - Hightower, Valentine, Green - they have been doing this for a long time so where are all those black officials who supposedly got hired because they are black? I believe in a perfect world guys should get hired based on skill - my world is perfect. :) To be fair and accurate I must also mention that while all this was going on the NBA and college basketball was being flooded by John Guthrie clones which are not these black officials - I can pick someone out who went to Guthrie's camps just from watching them run.

I mentioned Jamie because I know him (he is one of my references), I think he is one of the best officials in college and...he was on TV at the time I posted. :D

For me this shouldn't be about race; I'm a black official, but if someone can officiate I will give them credit no matter what color. I have a lot of white friends - I say that as a joke!

OK - that's about enough on this topic.