Can I get some help on Time Out administration?

[Nevadaref]

I don't care for what was just espoused by both mick and Rich because I believe that it runs contrary to the underlying principle of switching only on fouls. (The sideline switch on violations being an extra, but not as frequent, situation.)

Switching is not for the convenience of the officials. It is to help ensure basic fairness to the two teams. The intent of the switching mechanic is to render any difference in the way the two officials judge contact insignificant by rotating the two officials. The idea is to have the officials alternate who is in the Lead position on each end of the court, so that if one official is calling more fouls than his partner his calls should roughly alternate between the two teams. (Call a foul on this end, report, when play goes the other direction that same official is the Lead and can call a foul on that end on similar contact.) That can only work if the officials are changing positions on just the foul calls. (Yes, the sideline switch and forcing the R to be the Trail at the beginning of each quarter slightly undermines this.) For this concept to have merit, one must accept the theory that the Lead makes most of the foul calls in a two person game, and each official needs to adhere to the philosophy that he should rarely make calls out of his primary coverage area.

However, if the officials switch as they please, for example on a time-out because it saves them steps, then this concept gets skewed and one team sees more of one official on its offensive end than the other.

How much of an impact failing to switch or over-switching has is debateable. The closer the two officials are in how they call a game, the less significance it should have. Of course, if one guy calls it tightly and the other is a "let 'em play" guy, then very well may matter who is on one end for a few key possessions. Otherwise, switching would not exist and the officials would just stay on one half of the court the whole game/half/quarter.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't care for what was just espoused by both mick and Rich ....

That says something.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by mick

That says something.

Yeah, simply that I don't concur with the expressed sentiments.

[bob jenkins]

I agree with Nevada that the "formal" FED mechanics are to treat this just as if the defense had kicked the ball at the spot. Whoever would have administered that throw-in will administer the throw-in after the TO.

But, it's treated in many different ways in different areas -- and the OP should do whatever is done in his / her area.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree with Nevada that the "formal" FED mechanics are to treat this just as if the defense had kicked the ball at the spot. Whoever would have administered that throw-in will administer the throw-in after the TO.

But, it's treated in many different ways in different areas -- and the OP should do whatever is done in his / her area.

How's it done in your games? We've only worked together a handful of times, so I don't remember ever worrying about this.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

How's it done in your games? We've only worked together a handful of times, so I don't remember ever worrying about this.

Three-person: Go back to where you were (iow, treat is as a defensive violation)

Two-person: Whoever grants the TO stays at center court during the TO; the other official gets the ball and stands at the inbounding spot. Calling official "fills in" when TO is over. May result in a switch, may not.

[mj]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

How's it done in your games? We've only worked together a handful of times, so I don't remember ever worrying about this.

For what it's worth, in two-person I don't switch on a time out.

Three-person we "try" not to but it doesn't always work out that way. It depends on the amount of experience on the crew. As we don't work a ton of three-person.

[Rich]

Well, with the two of you and Nevadaref agreeing, I'll backtrack and try to do this going forward.

That is, when I work my next 3-person game, which unfortunately is not tonight or tomorrow (both 2-person).

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't care for what was just espoused by both mick and Rich because I believe that it runs contrary to the underlying principle of switching only on fouls. (The sideline switch on violations being an extra, but not as frequent, situation.)

Again, I do not believe the absence of direction to switch during a timeout is the same as an explicit requirement to not switch. The rationale you're attaching to it is your own, IMO.

Some switching is done for crew convenience and is written into the book. No long switches, the bump and run on violations administered on the sideline, and the fact that the R administers the throw in to start each subsequent quarter are examples. Another one is the tableside official calling the foul and nobody switching at all. I could call 10 fouls in a row against the defense in the frontcourt as the tableside trail and we would never switch at all.

Like I said, I've been working 3-person regularly for 7 years now and I've *never* heard this. And I do think it's making an issue out of nothing.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Again, I do not believe the absence of direction to switch during a timeout is the same as an explicit requirement to not switch. The rationale you're attaching to it is your own, IMO.

Some switching is done for crew convenience and is written into the book. No long switches, the bump and run on violations administered on the sideline, and the fact that the R administers the throw in to start each subsequent quarter are examples. Another one is the tableside official calling the foul and nobody switching at all. I could call 10 fouls in a row against the defense in the frontcourt as the tableside trail and we would never switch at all.

Like I said, I've been working 3-person regularly for 7 years now and I've *never* heard this. And I do think it's making an issue out of nothing.

Rich,
I was talking about the two-person officiating system. In that system, the NFHS does insist that the officials switch on ALL fouls, even if this forces a long switch in the backcourt or makes an official who is tableside go opposite.

The philosophy changes in the 3-man system because of the concept of live-ball rotations. That shifts the officials around in the natural flow of the game. However, it is still possible for an official to get stuck as the C opposite the table for a prolonged period of time, while the other two officials go for Lead to Lead and make most of the calls.

You may recall that the NCAA cited that as one of the reasons for reverting to the calling official going opposite after reporting. The NBA handles this issue simply by having the two free officials switch on a foul call as the reporting official comes to the table. Personally, I believe that is the best idea.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I don't care for what was just espoused by both mick and Rich because I believe that it runs contrary to the underlying principle of switching only on fouls. (The sideline switch on violations being an extra, but not as frequent, situation.)

Switching is not for the convenience of the officials. It is to help ensure basic fairness to the two teams. The intent of the switching mechanic is to render any difference in the way the two officials judge contact insignificant by rotating the two officials. The idea is to have the officials alternate who is in the Lead position on each end of the court, so that if one official is calling more fouls than his partner his calls should roughly alternate between the two teams. (Call a foul on this end, report, when play goes the other direction that same official is the Lead and can call a foul on that end on similar contact.) That can only work if the officials are changing positions on just the foul calls. (Yes, the sideline switch and forcing the R to be the Trail at the beginning of each quarter slightly undermines this.) For this concept to have merit, one must accept the theory that the Lead makes most of the foul calls in a two person game, and each official needs to adhere to the philosophy that he should rarely make calls out of his primary coverage area.

However, if the officials switch as they please, for example on a time-out because it saves them steps, then this concept gets skewed and one team sees more of one official on its offensive end than the other.

How much of an impact failing to switch or over-switching has is debateable. The closer the two officials are in how they call a game, the less significance it should have. Of course, if one guy calls it tightly and the other is a "let 'em play" guy, then very well may matter who is on one end for a few key possessions. Otherwise, switching would not exist and the officials would just stay on one half of the court the whole game/half/quarter.

Agreed