Mind your own business?
 

BV two whistle. Gym is crowded and pretty noisy. Trail is inbounding the ball opposite the visitors bench near the division line. Home coach, standing in the box yells timeout. Trail apparently didn't hear him. He took a step out onto the court and repeated the request a bit louder. No response. He took another step, and another, continuing to get louder. He was close to the center of the court when the trail finally spotted him. I'm thinking "Now he done it." Trail stepped briskly toward the coach, visibly annoyed, I thought, and granted the timeout. If not now, when? Trail tossed the ball to the lead, then proceeded to step into the huddle and engage in a spirited discussion with the coach, gesturing emphatically to the coaches box. To make a long story short, (too late) that was it. My question. If you are the lead on this play, at what point, if any would you not call the T from there? It is up to each to judge how far is too far, when it comes to a coach out of the box, whether asking for timeout or whatever reason. But if I'm the lead, as much as I think the coach had it coming, I don't think I would go literally get between him and my partner to hand it out. In other words, once he blew his whistle for the timeout, as far as I'm concerned the decision not to call the T has been made. As much as I may disagree with it, I think it wrong to step over my partner in this situation.

The floor is open.

My first reaction is that this is but one more reason to hate 2 whistle in boys V! Also, did YOU hear the request for the TO? If not I get it, but if so, why didn't you grant it?

Loud gym, grant the timeout. IMO

Call the T if you want, IMO.

But do not get into the huddle and have an argument with the coach during his TO.

BTW, if I'm lead on this, I'll grant the TO even if I can't quite hear it. No excuse not to.

Grant the TO.

Loud gym, close game, official focused on players, the officials need to be aware that coach might want to request a TO.

I am sure that there is a ref in nevada that would say a T is a must in this situation tho :)

I thought this was a given.

I don't follow this. How would you know to grant it if you didn't hear it?

I was sitting in the stands behind the bench. I assume the lead didn't hear it, since he was farther away than the trail, who obviously didn't hear it at first.

The coach was standing in the middle of the court. I agree with the ref from nevada in this case.

The point is that one of them should have heard it. The L really doesn't have anything going on yet, so could easily have helped this situation by having some awareness of what's going on and getting the TO for the coach.

just another ref:

After reading your OP I have a few questions:

(1) Did this happen in the first half or the second half?

(2) Which team, H or V, was making the Throw-in (ThI)?

(2) Did the H-HC make his request before the ball became live for the ThI?


The answers to these questions will determine how I would respond. BUT that has never stopped me from giving throwing my two cents into the discussion. Therefore, let me make some assumptions and go from there.

Assumptions Set (1):

Question (1): First Half.

Question (2): Team H's ThI.

Question (3): The answer to this question is moot because it is Team H's ThI.

Solution Set (1): Two-Person Officiating Crews (TPOC) have unique problems regarding TO requests. TPOC theory requries two (2) eyes on-the-ball (OnB) and two (2) eyes off-the-ball (OfB) (but still watching the players on the court). This means the last thing the Table Side Official (TSO) should do is to take his eyes away from the players on the court to see which coach is requesting a TO. The T, as the Official Opposite the Table (OOT) in this play, must be aware of possible TO requests from both benches. That means the T must officiate OnB while looking through the players to be aware of TO requests from the benches. Having said that, it does not mean the L, as the TSO, should not ingnore a TO request if it is made during the proper time frame, especially when the OOT doesn't see the TO request being made from the Benches.

It can been seen that the responsiblities that I have outlined in SS-1 can be applied no matter how Question (1), (2), and (3) are answered.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Happy New Year!! and GO BUCKEYES!!

You're going to penalize a coach for your inability to hear a request for TO? All he wanted was a TO and his request could not be heard.

A T in this situation will only lead to the 2nd T on the coach. It will also cement your status as "just another ref"

I would have thought so, too. The official in the OP, apparently, did not.

Situational awareness. I know we're supposed to hear and see, but in this case if the coach is clearly making his way, ever so slowly, onto the court with his hands in the T sign and mouthing the words "Time Out," I'll consider this close a case where seeing is enough.

If I'm wrong, I'll eat the IW and we'll move on. The ball's already dead.

Did I do that poor a job of describing things? The point of this thread was not even about the failure to grant the time out. I was asking if anyone would call the T from the lead after the trail had granted the time out and was obviously not going to call one.

This all happened with about 3 minutes to go in a close game. Visitors set to inbound. Ball had not become live. Another thing which may or may not be significant. The coach made no TO signal whatsoever, in great contrast to many who jump up and down and wave frantically to attract the officials attention. This guy simply walked in a straight line toward the trail, yelling his request over and over.

I think some of the kids now actually do not even realize that they, too, can make the timeout request. Earlier that same day in a girls game, I'm trail. Point guard stops near the division line. Defense is packed in a zone. I saw the girl look toward the bench. I heard the coach say "Point," a couple of times. I turned to look and the coach was signaling the timeout. I realized afterward the coach was trying to get her player to point at her, so I would look and see the signal. Wouldn't it be easier to have the players be aware that they should also make the signal?

Back to the OP. I think most of us have agreed after numerous discussions that almost nothing is an automatic T. But if a coach is standing that close to the center of the court as the ball is about to be put in play, unless he is trying to tell me the building is on fire or something equally important, he probably has one coming.

So where do you draw the line? When he walks up and slaps you to get your attention?

This different than I pictured it. As Trail, I'd probably call the T on this. As Lead, I wouldn't call the T after the Trail had already granted the TO.

OK, let me understand this.

Crew has little or no game awareness as well as absolutely no hearing. Therefore coach cannot get a reasonably requested timeout, so you want to whack him? Exactly how many more games do you want to do for that assignor?:rolleyes:

I'm not known as Mr T for nothing and even I wouldn't even begin to think about a T in that situation. No way am I whacking anyone in that situation. The most I would do is say, "Sorry coach, I'm married with six kids. I can't hear squat."

A request by the coach is no longer reasonable when it comes from the center
of the court.

No, he is being penalized for leaving the box. Coming out to the middle of the court is not acceptable ever. Coaches need to understand that seeing/hearing a timeout request from the bench is not the officials' top priority. Sure all he wanted was a timeout but that does not mean the other rules of the game do not apply.

just another ref:

Ignats is correct on this. While no wants to see a HC out on the court in this fashion, the officals screwed the pooch, as our umpiring brethern would say, in this situation. If a coach is continually requesting a TO during a ThI and neither officials ignore his legitimate requests for a TO, then they have to suck the TF back into their whistles and man-up to their poor game and court awareness.

MTD, Sr.

First off the officials did not "screw the pooch". Every time there is a thread about rules we would like to see changed multiple people always suggest not allowing coaches to request timeouts. It is hard to do, it is a hassle. Sometimes the officials will miss a timeout request because they are not looking in the direction of the bench.

Neither one of the officials ignored his legitimate request. They were not aware that he was requesting a timeout. It is not the officials fault that the gym was loud and they could not hear the coach calling timeout.

The NCAA rules say "Coaches are expected to remain in the coaching box. To do otherwise results in a distinct advantage that is not within the spirit and intent of the rules." The coach leaving the box created a distinct advantage for his team. Had he not left the box the team would not have been granted a timeout. If I was the opposing coach in this game and you didn't call the T you can be sure that I would find my way to the middle of the court while the ball is live at some point in the game. If you're going to allow the other coach to gain an advantage by walking out to the middle of the court I'm for sure going to try to help my team out by doing the same thing.

Regarding awareness, my thought also. Be prepared after a mini run or defensive miscue etc. that someone will be calling time out. After a made basket in above situations I always glance over to coach that is most likely to call one. Typically it will be called after a made basket, free throw or in transition.

That said, two man can be tough. I'd hate to call a T for the crew's 'failin' to communicate' .

So if the T is opposite the benches near the division line, how can he not have a clear view of both benches?

You have to be aware of things...I say no T. Keep the game moving and grant the timeout.

^^^^What MJ said but even more....Even if the T is Tableside, if the L is doing his job, he is looking at the Table (and therefore the HC should be in his Line of Sight) and should be looking for a last second sub and making sure they are ready to go (as a crew). In pregame, one of the standard points is to make eye contact before inbounding the ball. This isn't done so I can wink at my partner. This is done to make sure we are both ready and everything is under control. Apparently, the crew in the OP didn't address this in the pregame, or someone was asleep at the switch.

I just re-read the OP and this time this line jumped out at me. I believe it is highly unprofessional to step into the huddle, and pick a fight with a coach. We've talked alot about baiting coaches over the years. If this description doesn't fit that to a t (no pun intend....wait yes it was;)) I don't know what does. You want to say something to a coach, stand near the huddle (but outside it) and have a quick word after they break. In this description the some people want to:

1. Miss the reasonably requested timeout in a close game
2. Whack the coach because the referees had poor game awareness and management skills
3. Not whacking him, but being visibly annoyed and then eating up his time out by picking a fight.

You know, one of my pet peeves about civilians is when they say referees want the game to be about them and not the game. I could understand why a fan would feel that way about the Trail

No, I would not call the T frlm L if T granted the TO.

And, I wouldn't go into the huddle.

Whether to give the T depends on the coaches actions prior to this, and his actions in requesting a TO. I might (probably would) try to have a word with him after the TO asking (warning?) him to stay in the box.

Then you haven't been officiating very long ...
 

I'm one of those multiple people. Game awareness will certainly help, a lot, but there are situations where it is unbelievably difficult to grant a request for a timeout. One situation in in the first half, where an offensive player gets trapped in the corner, against the division line, and the sideline. The official is looking for out of bounds, backcourt, illegal "reaching in" contact, illegal movement of the pivot foot, etc., when from the bench on the other side of the table comes a request for a time out. If you think this is an easy situation to grant a timeout, then you haven't been officiating very long. The other situation involves players on the floor trying to get control of a loose ball. The official is looking for any one of a variety of violations, any one of a variety of fouls, or a held ball, when a voice from the bench requests a timeout. Again, if you think this is an easy situation to grant a timeout, then you haven't been officiating very long.

Game awareness helps. A good partner helps. But let's go back to the old rule where only players on the court could request a timeout.

Happy New Year.

I guess, to me, if the coach had been doing everything within the rules before he walked out onto the court, I'd have more compassion. Frankly, from the L's perspective, he's just walking and talking in a loud gym. He might very well be offering instructions to his players.

In the OP (as specified later), he was not using the widely accepted hand signal. Not only could the officials not hear him due to the gym, they couldn't see him due to the fact he wasn't giving a signal. I'm sorry, but this is a very key point.

Coaches aren't idiots, and a varsity coach should know that in a loud gym he's going to have to aid his timeout request with the signal.

Don't know that I agree with this and I know you profess this often but I don't have a frame of reference since I did not officiate with that rule. That said, if the coach is screaming timeout does it not stand to reason that if his players heard it they would signal and request it also. My point is, his own players did not hear it neither did the crew. Once recognized grant the timeout and I agree this all depends on what the rest of the game has been like with this coach.
Happy New Year

And lets go back to where the ball is put back into play with an actual jump ball everytime we have a jump ball situation (get rid of Alternating Possession). Ain't I a stinker, :D.

Happy New Year!

MTD, Sr.

"Time Out" ???
 

Simple answer, at least for games here in my little corner of the Constitution State, no.

And don't forget, after an official hears the timeout request, he, or she, has to make sure that it's made by the head coach of the team that has player control, which, in some, but not all, cases, can only be done visually. You don't want to grant a timeout request from the coach of the team that does not have player control, or the assistant coach of the team that does, or worse, from a parent sitting behind the bench who's yelling that the coach should request a timeout. How I long for the good old days? Can you hear Barbra Streisand singing in the background?

So What Else Is New ???
 

And we're supposed to be shocked by this?

And Tie Games, Or Sudden Death ???
 

Wouldn't you like us to go all the way back to where they "jumped it up" after every field goal? After all, that's what you cut your teeth on.

Coaches seem to have stopped coaching their players on making the timeout request. I haven't seen a player either initiate one or echoe one from his or her coach all season.

"Time Out" ...
 

Agree. The only requests that I get from players now, is from players who are airborne, on their way out of bounds (NFHS), or players about to get tied up in a held ball.

Requesting a time-out is not a guarantee ...
 

Connecticut interpreters send a bulletin out to all schools, through our state interscholastic athletic association, a few times each season. The December, 2008, bulletin contained this:

Coaches are reminded that requesting a time-out is not a guarantee that one will be granted. Officials must be certain that it is the head coach who is requesting a time-out, and that coach’s player has control of the ball before the time-out is granted.

What is/are the other official(s) doing? Since that's a common time for a TO request, someone should be attuned to the bench. C opposite has a great look through the play in 3-man, and L opposite can / should extend his/her vision through the players to the bench.

This is why coaches requesting timeouts are a dumb rule. Coaches do not use their players as they should to get the attention of the coach. Also, if the gym is loud, unless you are standing right next to a coach, I can see how the official would not know the coach requested a timeout. The coach needs to be happy that he did not get a technical foul.

I am sorry, but game awareness has nothing to do with this situation. I am not turning around or looking away from the court just to see a timeout request.

Peace

No but your partner should be watching your back

I disagree with that. The official might not be able to see the coach. This is why players need to request timeouts and coaches should be smart enough (and they are not) to have players give requests. And this is even harder in a two person system because you are looking at more players. Your focus is not on a coach. And I am not taking my eyes off players just to look at what a coach "might" be doing.

Peace

The T has on ball coverage so the L watches his back as you say. It's loud an the T can't hear the coach, so of course the L can't hear what the coach is saying either...all he sees is the coach walking out to the middle of the court. For all the L knows he is yelling something to his players. If the coach wants a timeout and the gym is too loud for the officials to hear his verbal request then he can either signal for a timeout or get his players to call the timeout. As I quoted the rule book earlier, a coach leaving the box creates a distinct advantage for his team. Sometimes the advantage is the coach is better able to communicate with his players, sometimes, as it was in this case, the coach was better able to communicate with the officials.

It always surprises me the lengths officials on here will go to not enforce the rules because they incorrectly believe that bad officiating caused the problem...not calling the T with 6 players because the officials messed up by allowing it to happen....not calling a double violation when the teams line up incorrectly for free throws because the officials didn't catch it ahead of time....not calling the T when the coach walks out to the middle of the floor to yell timeout because the officials couldn't hear him because the gym was so loud.

First of all, prior to administering the throw-in the ball is dead. I don't have a real problem with a coach outside the coaches box while play is stopped and the ball is dead. Second, I still maintain that prior to a throw-in the L has a responsibility to make sure everything is in order before signalling his partner to go ahead and administer the throw-in.

The ball was live in the OP.

LDUB:

Anybody who knows me will tell you that I have a near "zero" tolerance for unsportsmanlike conduct; just ask my two sons about the lectures I gave them concerning the type of behavior I expected of them as athletes, even my wife has gets a "dirty" look from me when she lets the umpires know they are lacking in their performances (she may be correct, but nobody in the stands would ever know what my opinion is of the officiating).

I and several others have stressed game awareness. The noise level may have been very high, but the T was OOT, meaning he should, I have previously stated, been looking through the players. I think that I am smart enough to recongnize the difference between a coach out on the court to coach his team or display his displeasure with the officicating and him requesting a TO.

A case in point is the 2004 YBOA Boys' National Championship. I had a 9U pool play game early in the tournament. Early in the third quarter I was T Table Side. A1 was holding the ball at the top of the key when A-HC left his coaching box to run out onto the court and picked up A2 who was standing about six feet below the free-throw line extended and carried him to a spot about three feet above the free-throw line extended. My immediate repsonse was: WHACK!!

MTD, Sr.

P.S. Daryl was not officiating the game with me.

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?

Harder In Two Person ...
 

In the Land of Steady Habits, 95% or our games are two person games, but you are correct in one respect, as I stated in an earlier post, a good partner would certainly help in this case, unless he, or she, has some post, or screen, type problems to deal with in their own PCA.

The OP says the T was administering a throw-in. It is not clear if the ball was live imo.

That is because all of the above situations are preventable if you know the game situation and simply slow down. We talk about game management on this board all the time and these are prime examples of such.

there is more to this
 

This is the responsibility of the officials and it could have benn handled better, I would hope that as the lead I would have seen the coach on the floor and blown my whistle to find out what we had, I would have been aproaching the caoch asking "coach you want a time out?" if he says no WHACK if he says yes it is granted and there is no problem.

The part of this that concerns me is the aggressive, nature of the official going in the Huddle talking with the coach, that is not what I want to see on a floor I'm on.
I can see having a conversation with the coach about putting you in a bad position by wandering out on the floor, but that needs to be a quiet conversation about the right way to go about things, so that there isn't a situation that is going to possibly result in a technical.

Let me guess, the trail came to the game dressed in his uniform? :D

Didn't actually see him come in, but I feel certain that he did. That is relevant at this point because...........

It would indicate that the Trail was completely in over his head as a Varsity official due to his lack of professionalism and game management skills.

I keep trying to picture this situation in my mind and everytime I do, I can't get past one key fact: If the officials made eye contact and were working together, this situation almost couldn't have happened. Literally, the mechanics of inbounding the ball only after making sure your partner was ready and things were OK would've surely caused the LEAD to see the coach yelling at the TRAIL and probably be able to decerne that he wanted SOMETHING. That alone should've required the LEAD to put his hand up to hold the Thrown-in until he figured out what the coach wanted wothout him having to come onto the floor. The more I think about this, the more I think the officials not only "screwed the pooch", but the whole darn pound.

Therefore its almost like they either didn't have a pregame, or were so over their heads with the game that they forgot their fundamentals.

I can't get over how many nice guys we have here who accept the coach in the middle of the floor in this situation. What if a sub comes to the table and we all miss it? No horn.....Nobody beckons.....nothing. Can the coach grab his sub by the arm and drag him onto the court?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Should the refs have recognized the request in this situation? perhaps

Does this justify the actions of the coach? no way

If you arrive in uniform it indicates that you lack professionalism and game management skills. Of course. I should have known.

Two entirely different scenarios. Your hypothetical is sooo out of left field as to be irrelevant. And if you can't recognize the difference, I would be worried about your judgement.

It's not, I was just adding some levity.

Frankly, I'm with you on this one. I keep harping on this, but unless he's also signalling the TO as he's walking and shouting, I might have a T as Lead before the trail gets the TO called.

If, however, I delayed and the trail calls the TO, I'm backing away at this point.

Simple game management again. The subs should easily be recognized by either official during the dead ball.

Levity? That's when a person is magically lifted off the ground? Maybe you could have used that to get that coach off the court.

Of course it is a mistake which could have been avoided, but what does that have to do with not penalizing it? The way to handle the situation is clearly outlined in the rules. Are you friend with the guy who wrote that article about the NBA game with 6 players:o?

So your judgement is that you would rectify a problem that was caused by your mistake with a Technical Foul?:rolleyes: Exactly how long did you plan on refereeing at the varsity level. Being afraid to whack a coach would cost you games around here, but whacking a coach when you were too proud to admit you messed up will cost you just as dearly around here. No one is arguing that the coach should not be on the floor. However, the reasons that the problem developed are mitigating factors.

• If the officials used their game management and awareness skills there wouldn't be a problem.
• The ball was still dead when the coach first started to request the timeout.
• There are other times that we as officials do not enforce the letter of the law...Advantage/Disadvantage....Three Seconds...etc
• The spirit of the rule is to prevent unsporting behavior by the coaches. The only unsporting act in this scenario is the eggregous lack of game management by the officials multiplied by the TRAIL invading the coach's huddle

I still can't believe that a crew would start an inbounding play as described in the OP.

I don't know that it *indicates* a lack of ... skills, but there is a stron correlation with the lack of ... skills, assuming the game was a scholastic game at a higher level than Frosh (the specific levels vary by area).

All I can say is the folks around here are out of luck because we pretty much
ALL arrive in uniform. On the day in question I was relating the discussion on this subject to my partner. We agreed that if we arrived wearing ties people would assume we had been to a funeral.

I would call a T for no other reason than to avoid being seen as a coward by "veteran" officials.

ROFLMAO!! By the way, do you officiating skills reflect your username?

MTD, Sr.

just another ref:

It would be unheard of in Ohio for a school not to provide the game officials a dressing room even for a JrHS basketball game.

But, when I officiated H.S. and college ball in Miami, Florida, in the mid-70's (Billy, that is 1970's, :D) the H.S.'s in the Greater Miami Athletic Conference (it stills exists; it is made up of all of the public H.S.'s and only the largest Catholic schools, of which there is only one or two) never provided a dressing room for the officials. Jr. varsity and varsity officials were expected to arrive at the game ready to walk onto the court to officiate and then sit at the Scorer's Table at halftime. This is one official that refused that kind of treatment from the schools, I guess it was because I started officiating in Ohio before I went to college in Miami and I wasn't about to be treated like a bum.

AD's would get the deer caught in the headligts look when I would walk into their school with my officiating bag in hand. They would tell that it was unheard of for an official to be provded with a dressing room and a place to go at halfime. But the slowly game around I guess, but I have since talked with officials from Dade County and nobody goes to a game dressed to officiate.

MTD, Sr.

Sorry, but you've got the wrong definition.

I looked it up once when I was dressing in the coach's office.

Question: Have you ever called a T for 6 players on the court? If so, you're argument is shot full of holes.

I disagree that the official caused this problem. Could they have prevented it? Sure, but they did not cause it. There's a huge difference here.

Does it not matter that the coach was not signaling?

The coach had a dictionary? Cool! Today, a dictionary.....tomorrow, maybe a rule book.

I've actually seen rule books in coach's offices. Normally they're about 2 or 3 years old, but you gotta give them credit for trying.

Although I've heard rumors of one coach around here that knows just enough to be a PITA.

The coach is a piece of bread? Still smarter than some coaches.

Thankfully, in 6 years, I have never had that pleasure. Probably because back when I was on the darkside (CYO Coach) I was victimized by it. So I tend to be a fanatic about that.

Victimized? How?

I've called exactly one.

What, you trying to open an old scab? LOL:D

I subbed a player. The Lead administered the throw-in before the substituted player left the floor. TRAIL didn't want to assess the T. LEAD said they had to. It was the only T I ever got coaching.

Wow! That's just one official who didn't know the rule or its purpose. This is a case where the official did cause the action, and still penalized when they shouldn't have.

I didn't make a mistake. Making sure each team has 5 players is not one of my duties, it is the teams' jobs to make sure they have the correct number of players. Same goes for lining up correctly for free throws. It's not the official's job to get everyone in the correct spot. Saying that the official cause one of those problems by not making sure everything was correct before administering the throw in/free throw is never correct.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

You mean you don't make sure the teams are set before you adminster a throw-in?????? WTF????? That may be the most asinine and ridiculous thing I have ever read hear. You don't resume play unless the teams are set. Players don't come in unless you or your partner beckon them in. You and your partner better not admin a throw-in until you are sure the same number went off as you beckoned on.

If an assignor around here knew that was your attitude and you had a T for 6 players, you would've worked your last high school game for about 300 square miles.

LDUB:

So what you are saying is that you do not count players before putting the ball into play. I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that you also put the ball into play without making eye contact with your partner(s) too.

MTD, Sr.

Of course I count the players. The difference between me and you is that I have no problem calling a technical foul if a team has 6 players; you think to yourself that you don't want to rectify this problem with a technical foul because you caused it.

LDUB:

If you count six players, are you going to put the ball into play and then charge the team with a TF or are you going withhold the ball from being put into play and inform the team that it has six players?

MTD, Sr.

So if you were me the other night when the home team came out with 6 players to start the 4th quarter you would've put the ball in play then whacked them with a T??

That's the way I read it...

Oh please. That isn't close to what he said.

Of course he uses "preventive officiating" in this situation. We all (I assume) do.

But we recognize that there's a difference between "maanaging the game" and "complying with the rules." The former is our job; the latter is the job of the playewrs and coaches. SOmetimes the actions required are similar (e.g., both want to be sure that each team has 5 and only 5 players), but the specific responsibilities and penalties are different.

I'm gonna start with, "always listen to Bob."

While the officials may have failed to prevent the infraction, you cannot claim they caused it.

Yes, of course I would say something. It is still not to make job to make sure there are 5 players, that is the job of the teams. The problem was cause by them having 6 players not by me failing to notice soon enough.

LDUB:

It MOST certainly IS YOUR JOB to make sure there are five players for each team on the court before you put the ball into play.

You had better be counting player and your partner(s) had better be counting players and the ball should never be put into play until all of the officials are happy with the player count.

MTD, Sr.

Sorry, you are wrong, it is not my job to do so, it is the teams' jobs. You sound like some coach trying to blame the officials when his team just got caught with 6 players.

Look, I'm the first guy to say it's the coach's job, or the NFHS wouldn't not have made this a T.

That said, this is the one T we're expected to prevent by counting players. Let me ask, do you hold the game up if you see 6 for one team?

And MTD is the last one I'd compare to a whiny coach since he's been working college ball since I was in diapers.

LDUB:


IF YOU INTEND TO BE A SUCCESSFUL BASKETBALL OFFICIAL YOU HAD BETTER DAMN WELL BE COUNTING PLAYERS BEFORE YOU PUT THE BALL INTO PLAY. TO PUT THE BALL INTO PLAY WITHOUT COUNTING PLAYERS IS ON OF THE BIGGEST SINS A BASKETBALL OFFICIAL CAN COMMIT. IT IS NOT YOUR JOB TO PLAY GOTCHA WITH A TEAM. YOUR ATTITUDE ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTS ME.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]

MTD, Sr.

LDUB, I dont know if you're an IAABO official or not, but per Substitution Procedures & Guidelines

#6. The official responsible for substitutions shall display the stop clock signal until all substiutions are completed & players are counted.

MTD - I could barely read your post. Do you have a strong opinion on this subject? ;)

Do you even read the other posts in this discussion?

I do not see what the big deal is. Someone commented that if there are 6 players the officials caused the problem. That is not correct and I said that. You obviously do not understand the rules of basketball and/or do not read what I have written. If you are really that disgusted I suggest you reread this discussion.

You have yet to answer the question. If you see there are 6 players on the floor during a substitution, do you hold up play?

Please answer. YES or NO.:rolleyes:


The fact that there are 6 players on the floor is the officials fault in this context:

Proper game management includes not allowing substitutes to enter until beckoned. Do you agree?
Trail usually beckons them on. When you are Trail in this situation do you hold the stop clock sign until the substituted personnel exit the floor?

If there are 6 players on the floor when you follow this procedure, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? The only way this happened, either you did not properly count or didn't bother to count. YOUR FAULT.

I already answered that.

Yes, of course that is the correct procedure.

How is that not the fault of the team? They sent 3 guys in and only 2 came out. Sure the officials could have noticed but for whatever reason they did not. That does not make it the officials fault, it is the team's responsibility to have 5 players. If it was actually a mistake by the officials then the team would not be charged with a foul. This is no different than having a double violation on a free throw when the teams line up in the wrong spots.

This has dissolved into a word game. It's nobody's fault or it's everybody's fault. I prefer to think of it this way. It can certainly be considered a mistake by the officials, but it is ultimately the responsibility of the coach. As far as I'm concerned, we, as officials may blame ourselves if this happens, but the coach has no right to blame us.

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.

While I feel it's my responsibility to count players and do my best to avoid the situation, it's not MY FAULT if it does happen. I don't get the technical foul, after all.

This happens about once every two seasons with me. I don't lose sleep over it. Whack, shoot, move on.

Six Players, Team Technical ...
 

While some posters in this thread have stated that's it's the coaches responsibility to have five players, at least one poster has indicated that it's the team's responsibility. For those who may be confused by this, by rule, not mechanic, it is the team's responsibility, not the coach's, and the technical foul penalty goes to the team.

Penalized if discovered while being violated: A team shall not have more than five team members participating simultaneously. Team technical foul. A team technical foul is charged if recognized by an official before the ball becomes live following the first dead ball. If it was not recognized by either official, but was called to their attention after the ball became live following the first dead ball, it is too late to assess any penalty.

Before some esteemed Forum members get all over me, I am simply clearing up some confusion that may have appeared in this thread, by rule. I am one who believes that, by mechanic, it is the officials responsibility to wait until they are sure that there are five players from each team, before putting the ball in play. Of course, this won't prevent a player from simply running out onto the court during a live ball.

Rookies, Take Careful Note ...
 

Like they say in those VISA commercials: PRICELESS.

"It is not your job to play gotcha with a team". © 2009 Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.: I expect my 10% copyright agent's commission based on any income generated by the use of this copyrighted quote. For IRS purposes, cash please, no checks (no money trail, no problems). Sunday is visiting day at the prison, and I have to go and visit my accountant later today.

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

What is the difference between these situations? It seems to me that moving down the sideline in front of the other team's bench isn't as bad as actually moving out onto the floor where one could interfere with play.

I see nowhere in his posts where he's trying to "play gotcha with a team."

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.