Timeout or not

[Mike51]

NF I attended a state high school tournament over the weekend and have only two "complaints" about the officiating. I watched 5 games and the officiating was really good.

The two incidents are as follows:
Boys semi-final game, back and forth all game, no bad blood between teams, no coaches harassing officials, just a good game.

4th qtr, score tied, less than 15 seconds remaining, both teams OUT of timeouts. Team A has the ball in the frontcourt, directly in front of their bench, point guard dribbling, winding the clock down. Coach is standing in the box, giving him directions. Defense is back, no pressure. Ref is also right there, (three-man crew).

The coach, with about 9 seconds left, looks right at the ref and says, 'Time". He also makes a "T" signal with his hands. Ref looks at him and does nothing. Point guard (with ball) also asks for a TO. Ref again looks thru him, he decides to play on and Team A misses a shot for the win. Team B coach either did not see this or was unaware of what was going on.

Game goes into 2 OT's and Team B wins.

IMO, the ref should have given them the timeout they requested. Your opinion, please.

Next day, another game, boys third place game. Third qtr, blow out game. Near the end of the qtr, losing team A scores a fast break lay-up. The ball falls directly into the hands of a Team A player. He immediately passes the ball to the official on the endline. All of a sudden, the ref who was on the other end of the court, blows his whistle, charges up the court to the table, and issues a delay of game warning to Team A. (This game had zero complaints from fans or coaches about officiating.)

A fan about halfway up in the stands, yells, "Why don't you call your end of the court? The ref then turns, looks up in the stands, and yells "Shut up".

Completely out of line for the ref to do this, IMO. Your thoughts

[AKOFL]

Grant the timeout when requested, even if you know the coach has no timeouts left.
As for the shut up, maybe that was a friend of his, and it was a joke. I would hope it was this sit., because a official should not tell someone to shut up. I have told player to shut thier mouths when trash talking starts, but I don't think I would use this on the crowd. I usually just laugh when the say anything to me. This official had it comming by making the call you described. We have all probably bown our whistle and made a call, then mentally slap ourselves because we know we just kicked it. I try to slap myself lightly so I don't bruise.

[mick]

Originally Posted by Mike51

A fan about halfway up in the stands, yells, "Why don't you call your end of the court? The ref then turns, looks up in the stands, and yells "Shut up".

Completely out of line for the ref to do this, IMO. Your thoughts

Officials Code of Ethics

Officials at an interscholastic athletic event are participants in the educational
development of high school students. As such, they must exercise a high level of selfdiscipline,
independence and responsibility. The purpose of this Code is to establish guidelines for ethical standards of conduct for all interscholastic officials.

[snip]

Officials

shall uphold the honor and dignity of the profession in all interaction with
student-athletes, coaches, athletic directors, school administrators, colleagues, and the public.

[snip]

[Mark Padgett]

Actually, I usually respond in Latin. "Fac taceas" means "just shut up" and "quare si mihi cura est" means "ask me if I care". You wouldn't believe how many coaches around here actually speak Latin. Uh, that would be zero, which is why it's so much fun.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by mick

Officials Code of Ethics

Is it contrary to the COE to try to pick up a female coach?

[mick]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

[/left]

Is it contrary to the COE to try to pick up a female coach?

It may be okay, as long as you treat the opposing coach with similar deference.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by Mark Padgett

Actually, I usually respond in Latin. "Fac taceas" means "just shut up" and "quare si mihi cura est" means "ask me if I care". You wouldn't believe how many coaches around here actually speak Latin. Uh, that would be zero, which is why it's so much fun.

Inflatus asinus............

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by mick

It may be okay, as long as you treat the opposing coach with similar deference.

Hmm... I want to go there, and I don't want to go there.

Originally Posted by mick

Officials Code of Ethics

Officials at an interscholastic athletic event are participants in the educational
development of high school students. As such, they must exercise a high level of selfdiscipline,
independence and responsibility. The purpose of this Code is to establish guidelines for ethical standards of conduct for all interscholastic officials.

[snip]

Officials

shall uphold the honor and dignity of the profession in all interaction with
student-athletes, coaches, athletic directors, school administrators, colleagues, and the public.

[snip]

OK, who besides me felt uneasy when the snipping showed up?

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Mike51

The coach, with about 9 seconds left, looks right at the ref and says, 'Time". He also makes a "T" signal with his hands. Ref looks at him and does nothing. Point guard (with ball) also asks for a TO.

The official is wrong not to grant the time out. especially since it was asked for basically three times, verbal - signal - verbal.

Originally Posted by Mike51

Near the end of the qtr, losing team A scores a fast break lay-up. The ball falls directly into the hands of a Team A player. He immediately passes the ball to the official on the endline. All of a sudden, the ref who was on the other end of the court, blows his whistle, charges up the court to the table, and issues a delay of game warning to Team A.

A fan about halfway up in the stands, yells, "Why don't you call your end of the court? The ref then turns, looks up in the stands, and yells "Shut up".

based on the rule: I find it hard to even make the warning here
ART. 6 . . . Delay the game by acts such as:

b. Failing when in possession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a violation or foul is called.

While not exactly the same if the ball lands in the kids hands - giving it directly to the official would be hard to come off as delay of game.

coming from the opposite endline and engaging the fans in "conversation" will probably not be a resume builder for next year.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

While not exactly the same if the ball lands in the kids hands - giving it directly to the official would be hard to come off as delay of game.

I think it certainly could, if the new offense was trying to get the ball to get it in and push in transition, or if the scoring team was trying to set up a press. Those two or three seconds would be crucial.

In a blow out, from new Lead? Not a chance.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

based on the rule: I find it hard to even make the warning here
ART. 6 . . . Delay the game by acts such as:

b. Failing when in possession, to immediately pass the ball to the nearer official when a violation or foul is called.

While not exactly the same if the ball lands in the kids hands - giving it directly to the official would be hard to come off as delay of game.

coming from the opposite endline and engaging the fans in "conversation" will probably not be a resume builder for next year.

That's not even the right rule.

Try 4-47-3.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That's not even the right rule.

Try 4-47-3.

Right you are except that is not what I said what I said was you can infer from this rule that giving the ball directly to an official when in your possession and the ball becomes or is dead is not delaying the game.

So what you are telling me is that in the third quarter of a blow out - if the ball comes through the basket and lands in a players hands (of the team that is losing) - and he tosses it directly to an official you are going to determine that to be delay of the game. and you are going to do it from the the new lead position?
Rule 4 Definitions
SECTION 47 WARNING FOR DELAY
ART. 3 . . . For interfering with the ball following a goal as in 10-1-5d.
Rule 10 Fouls and Penalties
SECTION 1 TEAM TECHNICAL
ART. 5 . . . Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts:
d. Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay.

this was the third quarter without any warning being given prior and how is this making it an actionless contest?
We will just have to disagree on that point.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

Right you are except that is not what I said what I said was you can infer from this rule that giving the ball directly to an official when in your possession and the ball becomes or is dead is not delaying the game.

There is no need to infer anything as there is a rule actually requiring a player to pass the ball to an official WHEN A WHISTLE BLOWS or it is a technical foul. That's 10-1-5b.
Since this situation isn't after a whistle, but just after a made goal, the individual delay provisions and the team actionless contest rule don't apply. Only the team delay provision has merit here. The actionless contest rule would kick in when a team repeats one of those four actions.
That's why I wrote that you were quoting the wrong rule. No other rule can even come into consideration in this case.

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

So what you are telling me is that in the third quarter of a blow out - if the ball comes through the basket and lands in a players hands (of the team that is losing) - and he tosses it directly to an official you are going to determine that to be delay of the game. and you are going to do it from the the new lead position?
Rule 4 Definitions
SECTION 47 WARNING FOR DELAY
ART. 3 . . . For interfering with the ball following a goal as in 10-1-5d.
Rule 10 Fouls and Penalties
SECTION 1 TEAM TECHNICAL
ART. 5 . . . Allow the game to develop into an actionless contest, this includes the following and similar acts:
d. Interfering with the ball following a goal after any team warning for delay.

The official is perfectly within his rights to decide that this action constitutes interfering with the ball following a goal. There is no denying that the player touched it and threw it somewhere. Not saying that I would make that determination, but I also can't state that any official doing so is totally wrong. I would even be likely to make this determination if the team was repeatedly catching the ball as it fell from the net and passing it to the nearest official. They have no right to do that. They need to leave the ball alone and allow the other team to collect it.
If my partner is not properly enforcing this rule, I would have no problem doing so. I don't care if I am the Lead, Center, or Trail. Nowhere in the rules does it state that only the new Trail official can make this call.

Originally Posted by OHBBREF

this was the third quarter without any warning being given prior and how is this making it an actionless contest?
We will just have to disagree on that point.

As I just stated above it doesn't make it an actionless contest. That rule is completely inapplicable precisely because, as you note, no prior warning has been given. There has to be a repeated infraction of the interfering with the ball prohibition for the team to be guilty of creating an actionless contest. Do you understand that?

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

OK, who besides me felt uneasy when the snipping showed up?

Especially because it was two separate snips.