30- and 60-second time-outs
 

On the way out last night, the visiting coach (who was a very pleasant lady, even after getting beat by 45 points) asked me a question about 30-second time-outs.

She said something like: I know the players have to stay on the floor, but can the other players come off the bench and get in a circle on the court.

The only restriction I know of in NFHS ball is that there should be no on-court entertainment during the 30-second time-out. Is there anything else that was put forward nationally?

I know other officials say things like "no chairs," "players must stay on the floor," but I get the feeling all of this is hooey, myths that then become part of the rules. I told her that there was no restriction that I was aware of in high school basketball other than the warning horn is at 15 seconds and the team should be getting ready to play at the warning horn, ready to go on the second horn.

Thanks for any manual, casebook, or rulebook citations you may have.

Here's what the NCAA says about this
 

Rule 5-13, Art. 2. During any timeout, bench personnel and players shall locate themselves inside an imaginary rectangle formed by the boundaries of the sideline (including the bench), end line, and an imaginary line extended from the free-throw lane line nearest the bench area meeting an imaginary line extended from the coaching-box line.

Rich, you are correct. There was an NFHS ruling a few years ago which stated that the rest of the team could come out onto the court and join in the huddle as the coach would be giving instructions. I believe this was made in a comment on the rules when the time-out length was changed from 20 to 30. I'll go check my books for you.

I know my original post may have been confusing since I was mixing real rules with myths pretty haphazardly.

Also, I know 5-12-5 requires players to remain standing during the 30. The confines of the bench area is similarly defined as in the NCAA in 1-13-3 and both 30s and 60s have to be conducted there. Nothing about players having to be on the court, just standing. That's the myth I was referring to.

The real question I have has to do with other team personnel, which Nevada picked up on.

And your real question was clarified by the NFHS back in the 2001-02 Comments on the Rules Revisions. It was longer ago than I thought. That was the year that the NFHS added the requirement that players must remain standing during a 30-second time-out.


REQUIREMENT TO STAND DURING 30-SECOND TIME-OUT (5-12-5):
To clarify and ensure consistent interpretation, during a 30-second time-out, players shall remain standing and on the floor in the vicinity of their team bench. Additional discussion reflected concerns about some states not enforcing the 'no cheerleaders' on the floor during a 30-second time-out and whether or not substitutes should be permitted to join the conference with the coach(es) and players. Because of instructions that may be given, the interpretation has been that team substitutes should be able to participate in the time-out meeting.
A reminder that teams must be prepared and leave the huddle when the 10-second warning signal is sounded.

*Note the warning signal was changed to 15 seconds prior to the end of the time-out period in the 2007-08 season.


Good job, Rich. You gave the coach the proper ruling. :)

Except for the part where they are to remain "on the floor." I did miss that.

I emailed the coach. She will probably think I'm crazy for including a 7-year-old passage, but I think she deserved a better answer than I gave her last night, although I was pretty much correct.

YOU'RE crazy?!?! How about me? :cool:

I knew that I had read the ruling before and also exactly where to find it! Sometimes I'm amazed at how my own mind works. It shouldn't be long before BillyMac comes along to tell me how sick it is that I can come up with a seven year-old ruling in just a few minutes. ;)

And when he does, I'll second it.

Shut up. :p

I think the myth comes about because during the interval to replace a DQ'd player, the coach can talk to the players but the other team members may not stand.

Driver does not carry cash.
 

[QUOTE=Nevadaref;580741 It shouldn't be long before BillyMac comes along to tell me how sick it is that I can come up with a seven year-old ruling in just a few minutes.[/QUOTE]

I never said that you were "sick". I just think that it's an amazing ability. Wish I cold do the same.

No postage necessary if mailed in the United States.
 

Sounds right, but, as usual, for me, citation please.

2003-04 POINTS OF EMPHASIS

5. Substituting -- Player disqualifications

F. Only the head coach is permitted to be standing during this interval.

;)

Try rule 10 -- when are bench personnel allowed to stand? Is this situation one of those times?

Not trying to be harsh, but you'd remember more if the interps (like NevadaRef) iand know where to find them (like NevadaRef) if you'd spend more time trying to find them in the first place (like NevadaRef).

(grammatical errors intentional).

Is this code for, "Yeah, I see them, but I don't want to go back and fix them"?

Contents may settle during shipment.
 

My biggest problem isn't understanding the rules, interpretations, and mechanics, but in remembering the many changes that have occurred over the past twenty-eight years. If the rules were the same today, as they were back in the early 1980's (change in status, lack of action, many jump balls, twenty-eight foot line relevant, "Cadillac" position, disallowed free throw inbounded at free throw line extended, always hand ball to inbounder, etc.), I would be as well versed as anyone in the rules, but it's difficult for me to keep up. I spend a lot of time reading my rulebook, casebook, and mechanics manual, maybe a little more time than most people, but, especially during the season, it's difficult to find time, with my day job as a chemist, to sit down, read, and study. I really wish that the NFHS would publish an additional reference, listing annual interpretations, and midseason interpretations, like the one cited by Nevadaref, that are still relevant, but, probably due to space limitations, do not make their way into the published casebook.

Also, maybe you view this Forum in a different way than I do, but I view this Forum as a resource. Am I being lazy by utilizing modern technology? When I know that there are Forum members who are willing to share their rules expertise with fellow members, why not simply ask for a citation. When a fellow Forum member asks a question, and I know that there is a citation that will clear up the question, I'm willing to post a citation, not a quickly as some members, like Nevadaref, but I'm still willing to help out my fellow officials when I am able.

Also, I don't understand the reference to grammatical errors. That's the only part of your post that I find harsh. My posts aren't at the level of mbyron, but I do try, to the best of my ability, to proofread my posts before I hit the Submit Reply button. My posts are far from perfect in the grammar, and spelling, department, but at least I try my best at making them "post-able". I've seen a lot worse.

Finally, like many other Forum members, I agree with the saying, "always listen to bob". There are a few other Forum members, who, like bob jenkins, get immediate credibility just by having their name attached to a post, but I, like Thomas, sometimes need to see it from the original source, the NFHS.

"Thomas said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."" (John 20:24)

I agree.

Yes, it's a resource. But, there have been three (or more?) posts from you asking for citations on relatively simple subjects when the citation was right in the current rules / case books.

Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. (Padgett update: ... and he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day). Learn to be a fisherman.

I can't tell you how many times I was looking for an answer to one question when I found out something else that I didn't know.


I was making fun of my own grammatical errors in my post.

30 second timeout
 

Several members of our association on our website message board are having a discussion about 30 second timeouts.

The rules states that teams shall remain standing, yet there is no specific penalty if a team decides to sit on the bench and not stand.

I have never had an issue with this. Usually just a friendly reminder to a team that it is a 30 second timeout works, but what if they refuse to stand?

Just looking for any thought on this.

Let's Pick Up Where We Left Off Earlier ...
 

Put the ball in play as soon as the horn ending the timeout sounds. :D

Nah, I prefer to consult the Past Interps Archive! :D

2001-2002 NFHS Basketball Interpretations

SITUATION 11: Each team and the official scorer have been notified that Team A has called a 30-second timeout. Team A decides to sit down on its bench. RULING: Incorrect procedure. The official should first inform the coach that his/her team is to remain standing during a 30-second timeout. If the coach refuses to adhere to the officials’ request, an unsporting technical shall be assessed. (5-12-5)

There's a general strategy here: although the rules lack a penalty specifically for a given behavior, there is a penalty for failing to follow an official's instructions. Remind them of what they're supposed to do, and then penalize accordingly if the behavior doesn't change.

"Failing To Follow An Official's Instructions" ???
 

This sounds familiar to me, but I can't find it in my rulebook. Citation please.

bob jenkins: I did look in my rulebook. Twice. I perused the rules, and also used the search function on my PDF version of the rules. I spent about fifteen minutes on it, and still couldn't find a citation.

Nothing Like Slapstick, Always Good For A Laugh ...
 

I know what the crew of Moe Howard, Curly Howard, and Larry Fine, would do; pull the chairs out from under the players as they're about to sit down. Ask Mark Padgett. He's an alternate on their crew and is very familiar with their style.

8 months later and you respond? Even I can't remember to what I was referring -- but I don't think it had anything to do with this specific issue, but rather "simple" questions you posted at about the same time (back in Feb).

Taken To Heart ...
 

I actually responded to your original post in two days. My most recent post was just to let you know that I was paying attention. Check out post numbers fourteen and sixteen of this thread.

Charged to penalize unsporting conduct: 2-8-1

Unsporting foul defined: 4-19-14.

Examples given in 10-3-6 and 10-4-1.

Failure to follow the instructions of an official is covered by the definition, but not mentioned in the examples. The mistake would be to think that the examples define the foul; in fact 10-3-6 and 10-4-1 specifically state that the foul is NOT limited to those examples.

"Not Limited To" ???
 

2-8-1: The officials shall: Penalize unsporting conduct by any player, coach, substitute, team attendant or follower.
4-19-14: An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.
10-3-6: A player shall not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:
a. Disrespectfully addressing or contacting an official or gesturing in such a manner as to indicate resentment.
b. Using profane or inappropriate language or obscene gestures.
c. Baiting or taunting an opponent.
d. Purposely obstructing an opponent’s vision by waving or placing hand(s) near his/her eyes.
e. Climbing on or lifting a teammate to secure greater height.
f. Faking being fouled, knowingly attempting a free throw or accepting a foul to which the player was not entitled.
g. Use tobacco or smokeless tobacco.
h. Removing the jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area.
10-4-1: The head coach is responsible for his/her own conduct and behavior, as well as substitutes, disqualified team members and all other bench personnel. Bench personnel, including the head coach, shall not: Commit an unsporting foul. This includes, but is not limited to, acts or conduct such as:
a. Disrespectfully addressing an official.
b. Attempting to influence an official’s decision.
c. Using profane or inappropriate language or obscene gestures.
d. Disrespectfully addressing, baiting or taunting an opponent.
e. Objecting to an official’s decision by rising from the bench or using gestures.
f. Inciting undesirable crowd reactions.
g. Being charged with fighting.
h. Removing the jersey and/or pants/skirt within the visual confines of the playing area.

So "failing to follow an official's instructions" is penalized because the rulebook contains the statements, "not limited to"? I can see your point, but I'm not convinced. If I'm going to penalize with a technical foul in this situation, I'm citing "2001-2002 NFHS Basketball Interpretations Situation 11", not "not limited to". Just my opinion. Thanks for the citations.

No, I'd also say that was also "unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play."

If you have a case play, all the better. But as you know, case plays illustrate and interpret the rules. Presumably the play to which you refer also cites these rules, which provide the basis for the case.

Unfair, Unethical, Dishonorable ...
 

4-19-14: An unsporting foul is a noncontact technical foul which consists of unfair, unethical, dishonorable conduct or any behavior not in accordance with the spirit of fair play.

This is now more convincing to me. Thanks.

I still swear that "failing to follow an official's instructions" was stated as a reason to penalize with a technical foul several, and I'm talking about several meaning more than twenty-five, years ago. Maybe it was never in writing, but was mentioned at a meeting by our interpreter.

Forgot about not allowing time out when 80% of the count was completed. :D

Change Of Status ...
 

Already covered it. That's what's called, or was called, a change of status.