Mind your own business?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

Giving a T here is tantamount to the college coach (at least i think it was a coach) who collapsed during a game and had to be rushed to the ER and the officials gave him a T essentially for falling out of the coaches box onto the court. I guess since heart attacks werent specifically NOT covered as an exception they went ahead and administered the T. I think in this case the spirit of the rule should be observed and a bit of common sense sprinkled in there. If a coach wants a TO, and neither officials notice it, AND its a dead ball, why can he not do everything within reason to get the officials attention?

Maybe next time he should try flashing lights and a loudspeaker. But then again that would be using an artificial noisemaker on the bench, and some here would want to T that too. Guess he's screwed.

If you can't see the difference between a heart attack and a coach purposefully walking into the middle of the court to verbally request a timeout; I can't help you.

[deecee]

Unfortunatley the coach has a RIGHT to request a TO and we have a job to pay attention to the game as a whole. That includes the court and benches. Suck it up and stop trying to dole out T's, just because by the letter of the rule they are allowed. We use discretion and judgement every game and I dont see why, we would not do the same here.

[Adam]

You're right. he has the right to request one. He has the responsibility, however, to do it within the rules. I've said it before, I'll bend the rules a bit on this, but I need him to do everything he can within the rules first, such as using a signal.

And just because he requests one, we are not obligated to see it. Our primary focus is the court.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You're right. he has the right to request one. He has the responsibility, however, to do it within the rules. I've said it before, I'll bend the rules a bit on this, but I need him to do everything he can within the rules first, such as using a signal.

And just because he requests one, we are not obligated to see it. Our primary focus is the court.

What if he has been using the signal, yelling for one and jumping up and down by the bench to get the officials attention and no one notices? Lets say he has the wrong personnel in that could effect the game. This seems like a great spot for game management and common sense officiating rather than going by the letter of the law. You can be right and everyone knows you can be right going by the absolute letter of the law. In this case I think its over kill.

[Adam]

Like I said, if he's doing all those things within the rules; I'm much more likely to be "compassionate."

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by deecee

What if he has been using the signal, yelling for one and jumping up and down by the bench to get the officials attention and no one notices?

That doesn't matter at all, it would never come up. If the officials saw him doing that they would grant the timeout. If they didn't see that they would never know the coach was trying to request a timeout prior to walking on the floor.

Also you are forgetting that the coach only needs to get the attention of one of 7 people (5 players, 2 officials) to get the timeout granted. It is not all the officials fault that the timeout request was not seen.

Originally Posted by deecee

This seems like a great spot for game management and common sense officiating rather than going by the letter of the law. You can be right and everyone knows you can be right going by the absolute letter of the law. In this case I think its over kill.

Leaving the box let the coach gain and advantage not intended by the rules. Requesting a timeout is no more of a valid reason to leave the box than shouting instructions to players is. In both cases leaving the box gives the coach an advantage.

[deecee]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Leaving the box let the coach gain and advantage not intended by the rules. Requesting a timeout is no more of a valid reason to leave the box than shouting instructions to players is. In both cases leaving the box gives the coach an advantage.

What advantage are you claiming he gets? A granted time out DURING a dead ball??? I dont see what you are so vehemently arguing. I am not saying the rules say "a coaches box is a coaches box which is x feet by x feet" and so on. I am saying that in reality, and in this case, calling a T is not the most prudent course of action. If you do, it wont bother me, because you are supported by the rules and thats fine. I am saying that I would NOT call this T. I am a pretty black and white person when it comes to the rules, but I do allow some areas of gray to seep in. I like to think that that little bit of gray is necessary to be an effective official. But once again, before I am jumped on for expressing my opinion, by rule you are supported to call a T in this case, but an argument can be made to NOT call the T and I fall into that camp.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by deecee

What advantage are you claiming he gets? A granted time out DURING a dead ball??? I dont see what you are so vehemently arguing. I am not saying the rules say "a coaches box is a coaches box which is x feet by x feet" and so on. I am saying that in reality, and in this case, calling a T is not the most prudent course of action. If you do, it wont bother me, because you are supported by the rules and thats fine. I am saying that I would NOT call this T. I am a pretty black and white person when it comes to the rules, but I do allow some areas of gray to seep in. I like to think that that little bit of gray is necessary to be an effective official. But once again, before I am jumped on for expressing my opinion, by rule you are supported to call a T in this case, but an argument can be made to NOT call the T and I fall into that camp.

At least your tone changed for the better. It's much better than what you wrote previously.

Originally Posted by deecee

Giving a T here is tantamount to the college coach (at least i think it was a coach) who collapsed during a game and had to be rushed to the ER and the officials gave him a T essentially for falling out of the coaches box onto the court. I guess since heart attacks werent specifically NOT covered as an exception they went ahead and administered the T. I think in this case the spirit of the rule should be observed and a bit of common sense sprinkled in there. If a coach wants a TO, and neither officials notice it, AND its a dead ball, why can he not do everything within reason to get the officials attention?

Maybe next time he should try flashing lights and a loudspeaker. But then again that would be using an artificial noisemaker on the bench, and some here would want to T that too. Guess he's screwed.

BTW, I believe that T was retracted once it was evident what had happened.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by deecee

I like to think that that little bit of gray is necessary to be an effective official. But once again, before I am jumped on for expressing my opinion, by rule you are supported to call a T in this case, but an argument can be made to NOT call the T and I fall into that camp.

Yes, but at some point one has to say that he is too far out of the box. He wasn't 2 steps out of the box towards the endline requesting a timeout, he was on the court and halfway across it. He was way out of the box, it was too far to let it go.

The other problem is he was actually on the court all the way out in the middle of it. What if the official didn't see him and administered the throw in and play was live while he was out in the middle of the floor? It is one thing to leave the box and move along the sideline out of bounds but it is totally different moving onto the court where one may interfere with play.