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.

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.

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.

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).

This Is How We Do It In The Constitution State (IAABO)
 

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.

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." :D

One Two Three Bump !!!
 

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.

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.

Connecticut line responsibility mechanics ...
 

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.

:rolleyes:

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

From post #6 earlier in this thread:

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

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! :D

What About Transition (Fast Break, Press Break) ???
 

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. ;)

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.

Agreed

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.

NFHS says on edge/on of the circle.

Thanks to you and Mick. That's what I remember. It's a change back to what we used to do years ago away from the silly both go to the tops of the key or the blocks we did for a few years.

You are correct, sir, thanks for the correction. Not sure where that came from.

2001-2003 Manual shows the 1/2-way mechanic.

And that official may or may not be the official who administers the timeout. That responsibility is based on who's line the throwin will be on based on the official's positions before the timeout.

Quit being silly. There is no reason when I read and respond to post #19 to go back and review the entire thread to someone said something similar in post #6. You may have enough free time to check, but I don't.

Silly age-related memory question...

Which edge? Nearest the table? Opposite table?

Table-side 30 [Shorter]
Opposite side 60 and intermission. [Longer]

Oh yeah. My little "memory full charged" light just went on. Thanks. :D

It's not silly to ask someone to actually read the thread before posting. :(

Do you officiate the same way? Do you pick up a play at the tail end without observing any of the previous action and make a call on the first thing that you see? I guess that you don't have time to see the whole play. :p

To go back and read all the old posts everytime a new post is added....sure it is? Its just plain silly to expect that. I

I also don't leave the game and go to work for a few hours between plays.

Reduces Ball Watching ???
 

IAABO claims that "farther sideline coverage by the trail above free throw line extended reduces ball watching and provides better coverage" (IAABO Crew of Two Basketball Officials Manual, page 46, "Option: Line Coverage Above Free Throw Line Extended)

How nice for them. Thank goodness I've never lived in an IAABO state. Just another group to take money from officials.

I'm all for reducing ball watching, but if the Lead simply takes a few steps back and positions himself near the corner of the court. He can handle the sideline while still giving 80% of his attention to post play.

I still say that there is no way that the Trail is going to be accurate on that far sideline.

You could read read the thread once and remember what has been said. Of course, that is difficult for old people. ;)

Maybe your life is so simple but I've got bigger things to worry about rather than what specificially was in which of dozens of threads I read hours or days before.

I guess that my memory is better than yours. :p

Devil's Advocate ???
 

I agree with you, maybe because I've been doing it the old way for over a quarter of a century, but, for sake of argument, that corner is out of the lead's primary. I will go on record that, in my case, over twenty-seven years, about 90% of my out of bounds calls, from the lead, that required me to ask my trail partner for help, came from this quarter of the front court, and, I'm guessing, that he, or she, was able to give me a call, without resorting to the arrow, or a "real" jump ball, about 75% the time. On the other hand, if we went to the IAABO option, how often would the trail ask for, and get help, from the lead?