Mass High School Tourney problems

[BayStateRef]

More details from the local paper of the losing team: http://www.wickedlocal.com/ipswich/sports/x1637133271#

Includes this: As you can imagine, the referees immediately went on the Ipswich “Ten Most Wanted” list, having to explain their call and be walked out of the gym with a police escort.

[Raymond]

I think the losing coach was pretty classy in the interview. Can't really argue with the last line of this quote from her:

“There’s not really much we can do,” she added. “They’re not allowed to look at video or anything electronic [for a replay], even though it’s a correctable error. All three of them said they didn’t see the clock. I thought that’s why we had three referees.”

[Kelvin green]

Score is 51-52 and there are three seconds on the clock. WITH cant a coach trust their experienced players to do the right thing. The players know what the score is and at that point need to win it or lose it on thier own.

I had a game earlier this year. 3 point ball game with 7 seconds left to go. second of 2 FT's by A ws missed. B grabs the ball comes up the floor. Everybody in the place knows that its a 3 or go home. Point guard gets ball and gets to top of key, as point guard starts up, my partner blows a whistle, Team B is calling time out. Whistle blew well before shot was away. The nearly uncontested 3 goes straight through the net... Coach then sets up one of the dunbest plays I have ever seen with 3 or so seconds on the clock and the shot doesnt even draw iron.

In the OP maybe one of the officials should have seen the clock but I see nothing by rule these guys did wrong. Coach should learn 1) to trust their players 2) and learn the rules. In her interview stated
even though it’s a correctable error. Oh really under what provision is this correctable?
The article claims the shooter hit the shot at 3.8... I wonder where they got that from the synchronized clock with the video feed?

Dont blame the officials for a stupid coaching mistake. She stated with .3 seconds she never would have called time out Oh really didnt I just see a Big Sky game that tried something along the same line?

Do you think she was actually looking at the clock? She also stated there must have been at least 2 seconds (nice even number)? Nice guess on reaction time... What we dont know as Paul Harvey called it the " rest of the story"...

Did the whistle blow correctly and the time so enthralled in a tight game forgot to shut the clock off? We'll never know..

No one watched the clock (not great game management but understandable given a one point game going to the buzzer. Who is not to say thy did not look up at that point in time and see the clock stopped?

No matter what I think it was handled right by rule, If the coaches dont like the rules they can
1) get Precisiontime on the floor (even that's not infallible)
2) ensure that every game has an official video feed with an appropriate DVR synchronized with the game clock with the appropriate courtside monitor ( go to the school district with that request...some schools can't get a second scoreboard)
3) Pay a proessional to run the standardized equipment
4) Change the rule to allow us to use the equipment.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

Score is 51-52 and there are three seconds on the clock. Why can't a coach trust their experienced players to do the right thing. The players know what the score is and at that point need to win it or lose it on their own.

I agree. I coached middle school basketball for over 25 years. My teams were always taught how to play transition basketball properly, outlet passes, steals, fast breaks, secondary breaks, etc. I never called a timeout late in the game in situations where we needed to score because I felt that we had a better chance to score when the other team was on the run, maybe they missed picking up a man, etc. I only called timeouts in this situation when the clock was stopped, i.e. out of bounds, violation, foul, etc. to gather my "troops" to make sure we knew what to do after the ball was put back into play, and, in some cases, to set up a "special" play.

Over 300 wins. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

In the OP maybe one of the officials should have seen the clock but I see nothing by rule these guys did wrong. Coach should learn 1) to trust their players 2) and learn the rules. In her interview stated
even though it’s a correctable error. Oh really under what provision is this correctable?

If the official has definite knowledge of the time when he granted the time out, he can have the clock set to that time. It is not a "correctable error" under 2-10, but the clock can be set to the correct time. That is how I understood the coach's statement.

I have not been in that gym, so I don't know if it has one or two scoreboards and where it (or they) are located. Clock awareness in the final seconds matters. So does peeking at the coach to see if she wants a time out. But if I can't see the clock when I grant the time out...and if the timer and my partners can't hear the whistle because the gym is so loud...and a few seconds run off the clock before I see the actual time, there is nothing to do but leave the clock alone.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

So does peeking at the coach to see if she wants a time out.

With under 5 seconds to go and a possible scoring play in progress, the last thing in the world that an official should be doing imo is peeking at a coach to see if he/she wants a TO. If you hear a TO request, that's when you peek at the coach.

That's what makes this play so damn difficult imo. The rulesmakers want an official to watch a last-second scoring play in progress in his area and simultaneously verify that a TO request is actually coming from the head coach....a head coach that is usually out of his sight line. The FED issued a POE in 2004-05 that directed us to visually confirm that any TO request is actually coming from a head coach before granting it.

In this particular case, the official upon hearing the TO request had to:
1) Confirm that the ball was still under player control when the request was made.
2) Visually confirm that the TO request was actually coming from the head coach.
3) Grant the request.
4) then check the game clock, if possible.
There has to be some kind of time lag during that sequence, especially if the player shot immediately after when you started to look at the head coach.

Stoopid rule. As typified in this game, it sureasheck can put the officials on the spot. If the TO wasn't granted and the 3-pointer had been missed, you'd still be reading about it in the papers too. That's because the coach would be screaming about not getting her TO and a few seconds for another shot.

Sometimes.....damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Jmhpoo.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

With under 5 seconds to go and a possible scoring play in progress, the last thing in the world that an official should be doing imo is peeking at a coach to see if he/she wants a TO. If you hear a TO request, that's when you peek at the coach.

That's what makes this play so damn difficult imo. The rulesmakers want an official to watch a last-second scoring play in progress in his area and simultaneously verify that a TO request is actually coming from the head coach....a head coach that is usually out of his sight line. The FED issued a POE in 2004-05 that directed us to visually confirm that any TO request is actually coming from a head coach before granting it.

In this particular case, the official upon hearing the TO request had to:
1) Confirm that the ball was still under player control when the request was made.
2) Visually confirm that the TO request was actually coming from the head coach.
3) Grant the request.
4) then check the game clock, if possible.
There has to be some kind of time lag during that sequence, especially if the player shot immediately after when you started to look at the head coach.

Stoopid rule. As typified in this game, it sureasheck can put the officials on the spot. If the TO wasn't granted and the 3-pointer had been missed, you'd still be reading about it in the papers too. That's because the coach would be screaming about not getting her TO and a few seconds for another shot.

Sometimes.....damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Jmhpoo.

3+4 can be done simultaneously. And in some cases, the official granting the TO can see the HC without moving their head much. For example: 3-person crew with Team A coach wanting a 2H TO and granted by C or T. IMO, a referee on the ball will understand some strategy and know when a coach's high interest is to request a TO. I'm just sayin' that some times, everything you need to do can happen rather quickly.

[Scrapper1]

"Just my humble poo"? Ewwww.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Clock awareness in the final seconds matters. So does peeking at the coach to see if she wants a time out.

As Jurassic Referee said in his post "With under 5 seconds to go and a possible scoring play in progress, the last thing in the world that an official should be doing imo is peeking at a coach to see if he/she wants a TO." I agree, but BayStateRef makes two good points worth noting. Clock awareness in the last few seconds of a game is very important. Also, there are times when experienced officials know that they have to be ready to "take a peek at the coach", for example, after the opposing team has gone on a 8-0 run, after the opposing team has made a few steals in a row after switching to a press, after a score by their team near the end of a close game, etc.

Rookie officials should take note.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

That's what makes this play so damn difficult imo. The rulesmakers want an official to watch a last-second scoring play in progress in his area and simultaneously verify that a TO request is actually coming from the head coach....a head coach that is usually out of his sight line. The FED issued a POE in 2004-05 that directed us to visually confirm that any TO request is actually coming from a head coach before granting it.

In this particular case, the official upon hearing the TO request had to:
1) Confirm that the ball was still under player control when the request was made.
2) Visually confirm that the TO request was actually coming from the head coach.
3) Grant the request.
4) then check the game clock, if possible.
There has to be some kind of time lag during that sequence, especially if the player shot immediately after when you started to look at the head coach.

Stoopid rule. As typified in this game, it sureasheck can put the officials on the spot. If the TO wasn't granted and the 3-pointer had been missed, you'd still be reading about it in the papers too. That's because the coach would be screaming about not getting her TO and a few seconds for another shot.

Jurassic Referee: Great post. You should make a copy of this post and send it to the NFHS. The newer officials on this Forum probably don't realize that there was a time when, by NFHS rule, only a player on the court, when their team had player control, could call a timeout. The five offensive players were always within the visual confines of the officials, even if there were just two officials, which made it a lot easier to grant time outs than the present procedure, as described by Jurassic Referee. It can be even more difficult to grant the request during a play where the officials are watching a "crazy" play, for example, player trapped in the corner against the division line, player picks up dribble, and pivots. We're looking for out of bounds, backcourt, travel, illegal dribble, personal foul, player control foul, etc., when a voice behind us says "Time out". Why won't the NFHS go back to the old rule?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

"Just my humble poo"?

Just my humble pissd-off opinion......

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

It can be even more difficult to grant the request during a play where the officials are watching a "crazy" play, for example, player trapped in the corner against the division line, player picks up dribble, and pivots. We're looking for out of bounds, backcourt, travel, illegal dribble, personal foul, player control foul, etc., when a voice behind us says "Time out". Why won't the NFHS go back to the old rule?

That play is an absolute killer when you're working 2-man and a quick double-team comes.

Stoopid monkeys.

[Nevadaref]

Two solutions:
1. revoke the coaches requesting time-outs
2. get rid of 2-man

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Two solutions:
1. revoke the coaches requesting time-outs
2. get rid of 2-man

I wish it were the latter, however, the former is more likely.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by tjones1

I wish it were the latter, however, the former is more likely.

Maybe the former is more likely than the latter, but I doubt that the former is going to happen. Officials have been complaining about the rule since its inception, and every year the NFHS ignores us.

However, they have reversed themselves in one key situation. They went from rebounders moving into the lane on the hit, to rebounders moving into the lane on the release, back to rebounders moving into the lane on the hit, on a free throw. I actually liked the release better.