Figure this one out

[loners4me]

I am guilty of preventive officiating here also. During dead balls late in close games I tell coaches how many tiome-outs they have remaining.

I guess the situation was handles correctly and I would put 100% of the blame on the scorekeeper. We are rule enforcers not rule makers.

You can't make something up to reverse the scorekeeprs error.

2 shots and the ball.....

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And how would this procedure have helped in the OP's situation? All it would have done is caused a called to the commissioner/supervisor with the following verbiage:

YOUR referee told me we had 1 time-out left. Later in the game when I called that time-out YOUR referee assessed a Technical foul against my team because YOUR referee then said there was a mistake and we really had 0 times-out left.

Me, personally, this is how I handle times-out late in a game.
If there are 2 books at the table I ask them if they both have the same time-out information. If there is a discrepency then we come to a resolution right there and then before the game proceeds.

If there is only 1 book at the table then I ask for the time-out count for each team. I'm also peeking at the book at the same time to confirm what I'm being told is what is actually in the book.

I do not relay the time-out count to coaches.

I hate to call Tees because of bookkeeping errors or calling excessive timeouts. I will of course do what I have to do. I see no problem keeping the teams informed as to the number of time outs left in a tight game. It's common practice in my area. If I move to an area where it's frowned upon I will do what's common in that particular area.

[socalreff]

So if you announce it's 2 shots and one player rebounds the 1st shot and scores, you're going to count it when you now realize it was supposed to be a one and one?
If the official scorer tells the coach he has a timeout remaining and he uses it, how can you assess a technical foul?
In my opinion, that's a scorekeeper error that can be rectified with no penalty. I know I wouldn't be working very long if I issued a tech in this situation.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

And how would this procedure have helped in the OP's situation? All it would have done is caused a called to the commissioner/supervisor with the following verbiage:

YOUR referee told me we had 1 time-out left. Later in the game when I called that time-out YOUR referee assessed a Technical foul against my team because YOUR referee then said there was a mistake and we really had 0 times-out left.

Me, personally, this is how I handle times-out late in a game.
If there are 2 books at the table I ask them if they both have the same time-out information. If there is a discrepency then we come to a resolution right there and then before the game proceeds.

If there is only 1 book at the table then I ask for the time-out count for each team. I'm also peeking at the book at the same time to confirm what I'm being told is what is actually in the book.

I do not relay the time-out count to coaches.

Also, all the referee did was relay information directly from the scorer. Is the coach going to send someone to examine the book anytime he has a question? Of course not!! They simply ask: How many fouls on #34? How many team fouls? How many timeouts do I have left?
You can't penalize a team for the official scorer's mistake. Give them the timeout they were told they have and move on.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by socalreff

You can't penalize a team for the official scorer's mistake. Give them the timeout they were told they have and move on.

If you follow the rules, you sureasheck will have to penalize a team for a scorer's mistake in this particular instance. You give them the TO and you also give them the technical foul that goes with it.

Terrible advice. You have no rules justification NOT to issue a technical foul in this situation.

Didn't you read about what happened to the officials in the Big Sky that wanted to be Mr. Nice Guy and not follow the rules too?