Can I get some help on Time Out administration?

[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).

[BillyMac]

Time Out Procedures

Officials do not switch court positions. Official with “line responsibility” when time-out was called, will administer the resumption of play throw-in and should assume that spot after reporting the time out.

If 30 second - one official goes to designated resumption of play spot and other official straddles division line, half-way between center circle and sideline closest to table. Both officials face the table.

If 60 Second - one official goes to designated resumption of play spot and other official straddles division line, half-way between sideline farthest from the table and the center circle. Both officials face the table.

Administering official - place ball on either hip, belt or back to indicate direction of ball.

Warning horn - when warning horn sounds, both officials initially move towards each team huddle and verbally say "first horn" and put index finger in air; then move to resumption of play court positions.

Final horn – Administering official will blow whistle before resuming play or use resumption of play procedure if teams are not ready to play.

Also, we're not allowed to "bump" the timeout, meaning that if I grant the timeout, I can't tell my partner to go to the reporting area to report the timeout, I must do it myself, no matter how far away from the table I am, and no matter how close my partner is to the table.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Also, we're not allowed to "bump" the timeout, meaning that if I grant the timeout, I can't tell my partner to go to the reporting area to report the timeout, I must do it myself, no matter how far away from the table I am, and no matter how close my partner is to the table.

When I was in DC we referred to that as "relaying" the time-out. Now that I am in NV, I call it "pony expressing."

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

When I was in DC we referred to that as "relaying" the time-out. Now that I am in NV, I call it "pony expressing."

Were you allowed to do it in the District? Are you allowed to do it in Nevada? We were allowed to do this for many years, until a few years ago, and I don't remember if we were using NFHS, or IAABO, mechanics back then, when we were suddenly told to stop the mechanic. According to our interpreter, two officials in a single "big time" game, screwed up the timeout reporting. The granting official said, "Timeout White", it got "bumped", and his partner misheard him, and reported it as, "Timeout Green", which created all kinds of problems near the end of a close game. Because two officials screwed up, we can't "bump" the timeouts anymore, at least here in Connecticut.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Time Out Procedures

Officials do not switch court positions. Official with “line responsibility” when time-out was called, will administer the resumption of play throw-in and should assume that spot after reporting the time out.

A switch of trail/lead does occur if and only if the throwin will be on the lead's sideline, in the frontcourt, and above the FT line extended.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A switch of trail/lead does occur if and only if the throwin will be on the lead's sideline, in the frontcourt, and above the FT line extended.

Here in Connecticut this is an area of controversy, not the switch part, but the line responsibility part. We recently switched form NFHS, to IAABO mechanics, and IAABO mechanics give us an option in terms of line responsibilities. Some of us old timers still believe that the lead's line responsibility extends all the way up the sideline, all the way to the backcourt endline. Younger officials believe that the lead's line responsibility ends at the foul line extended. IAABO gives us both options. This has to pregamed every game. I believe that the interpreters in our state are working on taking away the option part of this and will come out with a "Connecticut" line responsibility mechanic soon. I hope so. As I get older, as we all tend to do, and as more rookies join our local board, there will come a time when my assigned partner will only know the newer option.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

A switch of trail/lead does occur if and only if the throwin will be on the lead's sideline, in the frontcourt, and above the FT line extended.

Hello, hello... is there an echo in here?

From post #6 earlier in this thread:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

The only case in which I believe that it would be proper for the officials to switch during a time-out is if the location of the throw-in upon resumption would have dictated a sideline switch had there been a violation instead of a time-out request.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Younger officials believe that the lead's line responsibility ends at the foul line extended.

I can see that for THROW-IN administration responsibility, but not for LINE responsibility!

There is no-freaking-way that the Trail on the opposite side of the court can tell if a player steps on the boundary line on the Lead's side of the court above the FT line extended. In order to have a good angle to make that call the Trail would have to be hovering fifteen feet in the air!

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I can see that for THROW-IN administration responsibility, but not for LINE responsibility!There is no way that the Trail on the opposite side of the court can tell if a player steps on the boundary line on the Lead's side of the court above the FT line extended. In order to have a good angle to make that call the Trail would have to be hovering fifteen feet in the air!

You share my opinion, but the "higher ups" believe that the trail, in a two person game, can make that call if they move from the A, to the B, almost into the C lane.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

You share my opinion, but the "higher ups" believe that the trail, in a two person game, can make that call if they move from the A, to the B, almost into the C lane.

I believe that those "higher ups" need to come back down to reality.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

I can see that for THROW-IN administration responsibility, but not for LINE responsibility!

There is no-freaking-way that the Trail on the opposite side of the court can tell if a player steps on the boundary line on the Lead's side of the court above the FT line extended. In order to have a good angle to make that call the Trail would have to be hovering fifteen feet in the air!

Referee has call this a "recommended mechanic" for a while and I noticed that some of the officials in Wisconsin advocate this. Personally, I take the sideline all the way down on my side of the court when I'm the lead.

Don't want to shift gears too much, but I've misplaced my mechanics manual and I need a bit of a refresher since I've been working mostly 3-person.

2-person NFHS timeouts. 60-second and 30-second and the intermission between periods -- where does each official go? I know this was changed and changed back recently, so please, if anyone can give a quick synopsis, I'd appreciate it.

[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

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Referee has call this a "recommended mechanic" for a while and I noticed that some of the officials in Wisconsin advocate this. Personally, I take the sideline all the way down on my side of the court when I'm the lead.

Don't want to shift gears too much, but I've misplaced my mechanics manual and I need a bit of a refresher since I've been working mostly 3-person.

2-person NFHS timeouts. 60-second and 30-second and the intermission between periods -- where does each official go? I know this was changed and changed back recently, so please, if anyone can give a quick synopsis, I'd appreciate it.

Official that will administer the throw-in goes to the spot the ball will be inbounded (unless where the benches are, then the official stands outside the bench area across from that spot). This is true for all TOs and intermissions.

The other official takes a spot halfway between the circle and the sideline tableside for 30 second TOs, and halfway between the circle and the sideline opposite the table for 60 second TOs and intermissions.