Requirement or Courtesy?

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Red Question: What information do you mean? That the team has no more "free" timeouts left, or the number of "free" timeouts the team has left?

I've gotten the impression it is the number of TO's left (3, 2, 1), rather than simply they have used their last "free" TO.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Blue Statement: With regard to informing a team that it does not have any more "free" timeouts left, the duties of the Officials and the Scorer are the same under both NFHS and NCAA Rules. The Article (NFHS R2-S11-A6 and NCAA R2-S9-A9) pertaining to the Scorer's duties pre-dates the NHFS and NCAA Rules Committees, going back to the days of the National Basketball Committee of the United States and Canada. NCAA R2-S7-A15 was added as a clarification to accompany NCAA R2-S9-A9.

The fact is that it has always (my apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley) been an Official's duty to inform a team when it has used its last "free" timeout. And that the only way that this can be done is when the Scorer notifies an Official that a team has used its last "free" timeout.

Actually, I thought they read differently. First of all, in both rule sets, the scorer and timer are officials, or more specifically, part of the officiating crew. That's why their duties are listed in the same section. In NFHS, the floor officials' duties are listed in 2-4 thru 2-10, and the scorer's duties are listed in 2-11. The only place notification of TO's is listed is under 2-11-6. If it was specifically a floor official's duty, it would also be listed somewhere in 2-4 thru 2-10. However, as you pointed out, in NCAA rules it is listed under the floor official's duties, as well as the scorer's duties, that the officials shall notify a coach when they have taken their last allowable TO. So there is a difference between the two rule sets.

So, when the scorer tells me a team has used their last allotted TO, I will tell the coach. If they tell me the team has one full and one 30 left, I'll say thank you, and probably even relay that info to my partner(s). That's info that is good for the crew to know; perhaps we need to watch for a request in a tight situation. But I will not tell the coach that info. To me, that's no different than telling a coach two of his players have 4 fouls. That borders on me "coaching", or giving them information they are responsible for knowing. What if I give them wrong information? That is between the scorer and the coach, and our only responsibility in either instance is to let them know when they have none left.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by fullor30

You're missing the point, and as I stated, if you like to provide this service to coaches, terrific.

That said, if I'm at the table and table says he's out, I may or may not tell coach if he's out. I'd rather not and have never discussed not doing it with partners should they choose to do so.

Why would you not inform the coach. The rule says it is our responsibility to do so once the table notifies us.

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

Is it so hard as you go over to get the team out of a timeout to just "remind" the coach that he has 1 or 0 timeouts left? I do not think so.

Why would you tell a coach he/she has 1 time-out remaining? How is that preventive officiating? What purpose does it serve?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I've gotten the impression it is the number of TO's left (3, 2, 1), rather than simply they have used their last "free" TO.


Actually, I thought they read differently. First of all, in both rule sets, the scorer and timer are officials, or more specifically, part of the officiating crew. That's why their duties are listed in the same section. In NFHS, the floor officials' duties are listed in 2-4 thru 2-10, and the scorer's duties are listed in 2-11. The only place notification of TO's is listed is under 2-11-6. If it was specifically a floor official's duty, it would also be listed somewhere in 2-4 thru 2-10. However, as you pointed out, in NCAA rules it is listed under the floor official's duties, as well as the scorer's duties, that the officials shall notify a coach when they have taken their last allowable TO. So there is a difference between the two rule sets.

So, when the scorer tells me a team has used their last allotted TO, I will tell the coach. If they tell me the team has one full and one 30 left, I'll say thank you, and probably even relay that info to my partner(s). That's info that is good for the crew to know; perhaps we need to watch for a request in a tight situation. But I will not tell the coach that info. To me, that's no different than telling a coach two of his players have 4 fouls. That borders on me "coaching", or giving them information they are responsible for knowing. What if I give them wrong information? That is between the scorer and the coach, and our only responsibility in either instance is to let them know when they have none left.

M&M:

Go back and read Rule 2 in both the NCAA and NFHS rules books. The word "Official(s)" is used it is to denote the R and U or R, U1 and U2; it is not used to denote the Scorer and the Timer. You have missed my point: Both NCAA and NFHS Rules specifically state that the Scorer shall notify a team when it has used its last timeout, and that the Scorer shall do this by notifying an Official who shall then notify the team. The NFHS calls this out in R2-S11-A6, while the NCAA calls this out in R2-S7-A15 and R2-S9-A9. Sometime after the NBCUSC split into the NFHS and NCAA Rules Committees, the NCAA split NFHS R2-S11-A6 into NCAA R2-S7-A15 and R2-S9-A9, but the results are the same.

MTD, Sr.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Go back and read Rule 2 in both the NCAA and NFHS rules books. The word "Official(s)" is used it is to denote the R and U or R, U1 and U2; it is not used to denote the Scorer and the Timer.

Mark, I certainly don't want you to invoke the ghost of J. Dallas Shirley to chase me around, but I will ask you to go look at the very start of Rule 2 in both codes. In NFHS, 2-1 denotes both the "Game and Table Officials". In NCAA, Rule 2-1 is labeled, "The Officials", and Sec. 3 under that rule states "The scorers, timers, and shot clock operator shall be located at the scorers' table at courtside." So, clearly both rule sets include the table personnel as "officials".

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

You have missed my point: Both NCAA and NFHS Rules specifically state that the Scorer shall notify a team when it has used its last timeout, and that the Scorer shall do this by notifying an Official who shall then notify the team.

I don't think I've disagreed with this point; in fact, I agree. However, I was simply pointing out a slight difference in the two rule sets, in that in NFHS, under the specific duties listed for the floor officials (2-4 thru 2-10), there is no mention of the TO notification. The only mention is under the Scorer's duties, 2-11, where the the scorer is required to notify the coach through an official. However, under NCAA rules, it is listed both under the floor officials' duties (2-7-15), as well as under the scorer's duties (2-9-9).

So, if we wanted to be really picky, the only difference would be in NFHS, if the scorer did not notify the official about the team using their last allotted TO, the official would not have to notify the team. In NCAA, it appears the official would still need to notify the team, even if the table didn't inform them. In both cases, however, we agree that if the table notifies the official, the official then notifies the team.

My point in this whole discussion is I disagree with those who want to tell the coach they still have one full and one 30 left (or any other amount other than they've used their last one). Unless, of course, that is how it is commonly done in their area, and coaches and officials both come to view this as common practice.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

My point in this whole discussion is I disagree with those who want to tell the coach they still have one full and one 30 left (or any other amount other than they've used their last one). Unless, of course, that is how it is commonly done in their area, and coaches and officials both come to view this as common practice.

M&M:

We are on the same page. We both agree that the Officials (R, U, U1, and U2) should not be telling a team how many timeouts it has left. No we need to get on the same paragraph. The Scorer and the Timer are part of the officiating crew, but the word "Official(s)" mean: R, U, U1, and U2. Once again go back and read Rule 2 in both codes.

MTD, Sr.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

We are on the same page. We both agree that the Officials (R, U, U1, and U2) should not be telling a team how many timeouts it has left.

Good. I was starting to shudder at the thought of J. Dallas Shirley haunting my evenings.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

No we need to get on the same paragraph. The Scorer and the Timer are part of the officiating crew, but the word "Official(s)" mean: R, U, U1, and U2. Once again go back and read Rule 2 in both codes.

Well, we are probably parsing symantics; we'll need to have mbyron officiate this one. I agree the scorers and timers are separate from the floor officials, but they are listed in NFHS under the rule entitled "Officials and Their Duties", and they are referred to as "Table Officials". They are also separate from the "Game Officials". In NCAA, they are also covered under the same Rule heading: "Officials and Their Duties", and they are listed under the section entitled: "The Officials". It seems pretty clear to me they want these people to be considered officials, if only to make sure they are as unbiased and neutral as the floor officials.

[amusedofficial]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have said this before and I will say this again. The NF's position on any mechanics are they are not absolutes and do not need to be followed if a state, jurisdiction or association does not want to follow them. And that did not come from me that came from Mary Struckoff herself when I asked her this issue directly.

I am pleased to know that using standard signs are optional. I have several that I have invented all by myself that I am dying to use, and now I see that the editor of the rule book has decreed that the mechanics are optional.

Question: Does this mean she can use her editorial fiat in other areas and change substantive playing rules as well? What if she decreed that it would henceforth be a foul to go "over the back?" Apparently she has more power than the rules committee...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

I am pleased to know that using standard signs are optional. I have several that I have invented all by myself that I am dying to use, and now I see that the editor of the rule book has decreed that the mechanics are optional.

Question: Does this mean she can use her editorial fiat in other areas and change substantive playing rules as well? What if she decreed that it would henceforth be a foul to go "over the back?" Apparently she has more power than the rules committee...

You obviously did not read what I said. I said that if a state wants to dictate their officials use mechanics (which BTW are much more than signals), is their right to do so. There are several examples across this country where states want their officials to do very specific things that do not follow the NF Manuals. I did not even mention signals, I mentioned mechanics. Things like where you stand, when you stand there, who moves after a foul, who has the last second shot and how you can hand the ball on the end line. Considering that the NF Manual is often incomplete or not specific, states have to fill in the blanks or change what they feel is necessary. I am going to take her word for it that she is speaking for expectations of the committee (considering she actually works for the NF and most committee members do not) and that she knows a little more about how this works than you or I do. I do know in my state our state decided not to use many of the mechanics in two other sports I work and my state is considered 100% compliance state. And there are some major things my state wants us to do that only reviewing the NF Manuals would be confusing.

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have said this before and I will say this again. The NF's position on any mechanics are they are not absolutes and do not need to be followed if a state, jurisdiction or association does not want to follow them. And that did not come from me that came from Mary Struckoff herself when I asked her this issue directly. The NF Manual is to give a guideline so there is some uniformity, but they know that states, organizations or boards do not follow them and they do not try to tell states how to use mechanics. Just like the NF cannot tell states how to license officials or train officials, they cannot tell states what they want their officials to do as it relates to everything from what they wear to what mechanics they use or do not use.

Originally Posted by amusedofficial

I am pleased to know that using standard signs are optional. I have several that I have invented all by myself that I am dying to use, and now I see that the editor of the rule book has decreed that the mechanics are optional.

Question: Does this mean she can use her editorial fiat in other areas and change substantive playing rules as well? What if she decreed that it would henceforth be a foul to go "over the back?" Apparently she has more power than the rules committee...

Interesting that Mary would say this in light of the following:

2008-09 Points of Emphasis

5. Officials Mechanics and Signals. Communication and consistency remain the most important elements of good officiating. It is essential for officials to be familiar and comfortable with proper NFHS mechanics and signals. .........................................

Approved NFHS signals are dignified, informative and meaningful. The use of unauthorized signals frequently confuses, because the meaning is unknown.

[M&M Guy]

You do need to understand the context of her statement. All Mary is saying is a state or governing body can change certain mechanics if they feel it is better suited to what that state wants to accomplish. What is not acceptable in either case is for an official to deviate from what that governing body says are the proper mechanincs.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Interesting that Mary would say this in light of the following:

2008-09 Points of Emphasis

5. Officials Mechanics and Signals. Communication and consistency remain the most important elements of good officiating. It is essential for officials to be familiar and comfortable with proper NFHS mechanics and signals. .........................................

Approved NFHS signals are dignified, informative and meaningful. The use of unauthorized signals frequently confuses, because the meaning is unknown.

What go you expect the NFHS to say?

"The mechanics are frequently redundant, look goofy, and, frankly, they suck."

The NFHS telling me the NFHS's mechanics are anything other than what they made up makes me laugh.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

What go you expect the NFHS to say?

"The mechanics are frequently redundant, look goofy, and, frankly, they suck."

The NFHS telling me the NFHS's mechanics are anything other than what they made up makes me laugh.

LOL!!!

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

What go you expect the NFHS to say?

"The mechanics are frequently redundant, look goofy, and, frankly, they suck."

The NFHS telling me the NFHS's mechanics are anything other than what they made up makes me laugh.

I expect them to say what they said. What I don't expect is for the editor of their book to say anything to the contrary.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

I expect them to say what they said. What I don't expect is for the editor of their book to say anything to the contrary.

She was not talking about basketball. And my direct question to her was not about basketball either. She was speaking as a NF employee and the powers and ability of the NF. The NF is not all powerful and knowing unlike what some want to think.

Peace

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

She was not talking about basketball. And my direct question to her was not about basketball either. She was speaking as a NF employee and the powers and ability of the NF. The NF is not all powerful and knowing unlike what some want to think.

Peace

Your blasphemy is noted and reported; and will be dealt with appropriately.