We always exercise our personal judgement even if the rule is perfectly clear. :D

What if the player said, "I DIDN'T CALL A TIME OUT, I said 'sideout'!" If the headcoach request for it, then it's a different case.

Your evaluator would also question your game-awareness. "Chi, you know White doesn't have any more time out, why did you grant it?" Your reply would be, "because I'm the only person in the entire gym that heard it." Not buying it!

Grant the time out if the player says it "loud enough" (now with that you really need to use your judgement) or if he/she signals the time out. Game tape will always back you up if the player signals it, but cannot prove that he said timeout.

First, I'll say I know you didn't "call" it you "requested" it & I granted it. If he persists with the stooopid "sideout" tactic, I'd whack him for lying :eek:
Now the opposition shoots 4 & possesion the rock.

Cool. If you were doing the 1993 NCAA championship game and Chris Webber quietly <b>asked</b> you for a TO, your philosophy would have been to ignore it. Know what? Your philosophy really, really needs to grow some balls.:)

That's terrible advice imo. Just call the game. Officials aren't supposed to influence the result of any game. We aren't supposed to insert our personal philosophies into any call that may give a team an unfair advantage not intended by the rules.

Man you got an ego trip. This might work at the high school level but definitely not at the college level.

1) And if you ignore a perfectly clear rule, then your judgment is faulty.

2) I disagree completely with that statement also. I haven't met an evaluator yet that agrees with that philosophy either. That includes me. If I have an official come up with some lame excuse for not granting an excess TO request, then I gotta tell you that official is going back to middle school games. He just showed me that he doesn't have the testicular fortitude to call at any level higher than that. It has nothing to do with game awareness either. The official that called the "T" in the 1993 NCAA championship game sureashell had game awareness. He was aware that Michigan had no TO's left and he was also aware that the rules made him grant the TO request. Making up excuses not to make a righteous call has got absolutely nothing to do with game awareness.

That statement is complete and utter bullsh!t imo.

There's a reason that you're not doing NCAA championship games.

Who me? No sir, growing up where I did I've ALWAYS been a very humble person. And when I was struck in my face by a coach a couple months back, it humbled me even more...

They still use terms like "5 out" & "sideout" in the NCAAs??? Do they still scream "ball ball ball" when the dribble is picked up too???
Oh my...

Chris Webber made it loud and obviously enough for more than one officials to hear and notice it. I'm arguing that if I'm the only person in the entire gym that hears the timeout, I'm going to hold my whistle until he make it loud or obvious enough to grant it. WE must exercise our judgement that fits the game. This scenario has nothing to do with COURAGE.

btw, if you look at the video, after Chris Webber rebounds the bball, he committed a traveling violation. According to your theory, if the "officials aren't supposed to influence the result of the game," the new T should have called a traveling first, correct????" It looks to me that right there and then, a NCAA championship official didn't call a traveling and gave Michigan an "unfair advantage".

How come the officials didn't get any crap for not calling the travel violation? It is because he's exercising judgement that FITS THE GAME!!!!!!!!

Here's a link to that travelling and timeout

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NH1ujxNwrkA

Sorry, but if you fail to make any <b>CORRECT</b> and <b>APPROPRIATE</b> call, you lack <b>both</b> good judgment <b>and</b> courage imo.

And also imo you won't get to the NCAA D1 level, and stay there, if you make up weak excuses for not making the correct call.

Just some advice for any official that agrees with Mwanr1...take it fwiw....it is <b>NOT</b> a good idea to tell your evaluator after the game that you heard a legitimate TO request, but that you ignored it because you knew his team was out of TO's and the request wasn't discernable to everybody in the crowd. Not a good idea imo.

I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. Mwanr1.

The officials actually took a ton of a crap for missing that traveling call. That was, plain and simple, a blown call. However, it wasn't a <b>deliberately</b> blown call. Failing to honor a legitimate TO request is deliberately blowing the call. That's one heckuva big difference.

Apples and oranges.

Unfortunately in this business, even though deep down we want to do the CORRECT AND APPROPRIATE thing, we cannot always exercise it. Take these two examples below and you tell me which is the b>CORRECT</b> and <b>APPROPRIATE</b> call

1. You walk pass the headcoach and he whisper in your ears, "F**k you"

and

2. you walk pass the headcoach and he screams "F**k you" (loud enough for the 1st row can hear it).

What would you guys have done?

In my honest opinion and correct me if I"m wrong, I'll ignore the 1st scenaior because no one but me heard the F BOMB. Is it the right thing to T the headcoach, sure it is. Am I going to whack him? NO because I'll NEVER win that battle against. HE/SHE will lie up the a55 and say "I never said that." My word against their word - they win.

Second scenario is different because he/she said it loud enough. Am I going to whack him? HELL FREAKING YES.

Call me crazy but I'm Ting the coach in both scenarios. Not sure what your example is trying to show, but I don't think it helps your cause.

One would have to be in that situation to actually say, but I think it's fair not only to whack the coach but run their a$$ as well... Flagrant Technical or stick him twice:
1 - language
2 - sexual advances

Maybe you should stop now, your credibility is deteriorating with every stroke of the keys.

BTW, thanks for touching back on the "ego trip" accusation. Real stand-upish of ya :rolleyes:

I was thinking the same thing. But this is turning into a fun thread, why don't we just call a do-over & let him try again.