Can I get some help on Time Out administration?
 

Can I just get some confirmation as to whether:
'Calling official' and 'Administering official' are not necessarily the same official.

We went over this so many times in our association meetings last year it made my head spin.

Our interpreters decided that the "administering official" (Like it says in the manual) is the official that calls the TO at the table. That official then goes to the spot where the ball is to be inbounded. Someone on here said that they do it completely opposite.

Calling official reports the time-out.
Administering official handles the spot and the ball after the time-out.

Could be the same official, but in my games a non-calling official will usually get the ball and take it to the spot while the calling official goes to the reporting area.

If the ball will be inbounded near the table-side reporting area, one official may perform both duties.

We may be saying the same thing, but the description is difficult to put into words. I'll try anyway.

I don't care which official grants the time-out, but that official is definitely the calling official.
The administering official, as I understand it, refers to the official who administers the throw-in/FT following the time-out.
This could be the same official or it could not.

Since the officials are not supposed to switch during a time-out, but should return to their same positions, I am used to the calling official going back to where he was. This means that if play was stopped with the ball in his PCA, then his partner will temporarily hold the ball for him while he reports the time-out to the table. When he is finished the calling official would come back, collect the ball and go to the inbounds location while his partner takes the division line position. If the game will not resume from the calling official's primary, then he will be the free official and assume the duties at the division line during the time-out.

Anyway, that's my understanding of how it works.

Where may I find the 'not supposed to switch' information ?
Thanks.

NFHS Basketball Officials Manual
2.0.11 Switch

The definition of that term only says violations or fouls. Time-outs are not mentioned. Violations are included because of the sideline switch as shown in diagram 2-10.

In both 2.2.2 D and 2.4.2 E the manual instructs the officials to switch, but nowhere in 2.4.3 (time-outs) does it say for the officials to do so.

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.

This is the first time I have ever heard of that. In our games, the administering official is left with the most convenient positioning after reporting the timeout. Most often, another official will have the ball and will either give the ball to the administering official or will already be at the throw-in spot.

We will definitely use a timeout to switch if we haven't switched in a long time.

I don't think the absence of switching being mentioned in this situation means anything, personally.

Well, I'm happy that I am not missing any pages about officials not switching. :)

Sometimes we switch for the simple reason of changing the view.

Another reason to switch is when one of the partners is missing/passing rough contact in the paint on one end of the floor.

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.

That says something.

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

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.

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.

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.