Mind your own business?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Mark, if the coach wants a timeout in a noisy gym, don't you think he's obligated to use a hand signal for it before resorting to crossing the court?

The crew didn't hear him at all. They didn't see him until he was standing at midcourt. For all they knew, he could have been jumping up and down, signaling for all he was worth.

We know from JAR's OP and clarification that the coach didn't. But it was the crew on the floor that had to make the call. And they had no idea if he had been signaling or not. How could they simply assume that he hadn't tried it, to no avail, and base a T on what they didn't see?

However, your point about the risk the HC incurs by doing this if the L looks up and sees him at midcourt shouting at his partner is valid. But the HC is under no obligation to signal for a TO.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

And they had no idea if he had been signaling or not. How could they simply assume that he hadn't tried it, to no avail

Does that matter? I never thought requesting a timeout was a valid reason to go halfway across the court.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The crew didn't hear him at all. They didn't see him until he was standing at midcourt. For all they knew, he could have been jumping up and down, signaling for all he was worth.

We know from JAR's OP and clarification that the coach didn't. But it was the crew on the floor that had to make the call. And they had no idea if he had been signaling or not. How could they simply assume that he hadn't tried it, to no avail, and base a T on what they didn't see?

However, your point about the risk the HC incurs by doing this if the L looks up and sees him at midcourt shouting at his partner is valid. But the HC is under no obligation to signal for a TO.

A T in this case would have been based on what they did see.

The coach is under no obligation to do anything in this situation, except stay out of the middle of the court. Is he obligated to make a signal? Certainly not. But one would think he would make one in an attempt to be noticed.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

The crew didn't hear him at all. They didn't see him until he was standing at midcourt. For all they knew, he could have been jumping up and down, signaling for all he was worth.

We know from JAR's OP and clarification that the coach didn't. But it was the crew on the floor that had to make the call. And they had no idea if he had been signaling or not. How could they simply assume that he hadn't tried it, to no avail, and base a T on what they didn't see?

However, your point about the risk the HC incurs by doing this if the L looks up and sees him at midcourt shouting at his partner is valid. But the HC is under no obligation to signal for a TO.

You're right, I'm assuming the L saw the whole play but couldn't hear what the coach was shouting. However, either way, coach risks a T.

1. L sees it, and clearly sees coach wasn't signalling. In my book, coach is under the obligation to do everything he can within the rules to get a TO before he starts breaking the rules (by going onto the middle of the court). 99.99998% chance the L would have granted a TO by the time he got 4 steps onto the court if he was signaling.

2. L doesn't see it because he's watching two knuckleheads underneath while T is watching two knuckleheads up top. Coach is allowed to request a TO, but he must do so within the rules. L looks over and sees coach standing in the middle of the court shouting at his partner, that T might just come out by instinct.