Time out if......

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

...

Awareness of timeout scenarios separates officials, like it or not. It's not like you have to stare at the ball handler, either. You *know* where the ball is with your periphgeral vision -- besides, if the ball is still in the backcourt, the odds of nefarious things happening in the front court are pretty small.

Maybe where you work, but around here a lot of nefarious things jump off away from the ball.

As the new Lead (especially in 2-man) I'm keeping my eyes on the pack, not watching to see when the ball crosses halfcourt so I can grant a time-out that was requested 10 seconds earlier. How about the coach directing his request to the new Trail who will crossing the division line with the ball handler?

Otherwise the coach is taking the risk of getting a time-out granted while the ball is still in the backcourt, similar to JRut's scenario.

[Back In The Saddle]

I occasionally get the "time out if he makes it" request during free throws, and that's not a problem. But what came up in Jeff's game is a little over the top. I'm not the freakin' maitre d', I don't take reservations for time outs.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Maybe where you work, but around here a lot of nefarious things jump off away from the ball.

As the new Lead (especially in 2-man) I'm keeping my eyes on the pack, not watching to see when the ball crosses halfcourt so I can grant a time-out that was requested 10 seconds earlier. How about the coach directing his request to the new Trail who will crossing the division line with the ball handler?

Otherwise the coach is taking the risk of getting a time-out granted while the ball is still in the backcourt, similar to JRut's scenario.

Much ado about nothing. You can still watch the pack and keep an eye on the coach. Tell me that you don't look for a time out request when a team has just given up 8 straight points (or some such). Situational awareness.

Too many things on this forum degrade into "if you're watching something else you can't be watching what you're supposed to be watching." And my response is that my field of vision is pretty wide and I can take quick glances when they need to be taken. YMMV. Shrug.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Much ado about nothing. You can still watch the pack and keep an eye on the coach. Tell me that you don't look for a time out request when a team has just given up 8 straight points (or some such). Situational awareness.

Too many things on this forum degrade into "if you're watching something else you can't be watching what you're supposed to be watching." And my response is that my field of vision is pretty wide and I can take quick glances when they need to be taken. YMMV. Shrug.

What's does this have to do with what I was responding to originally. This is what I responded to:

Coach asked for a timeout when the ball made it passed the division line. The request was made while the ball was still in the back court. It was a little awkward since I had to watch the ball coming up the court instead of watching the players in my primary.

What situational awareness? No press, no 8-point run. Just a coach asking for a delayed time-out during live ball action. Apples and oranges.

There is more than one official on the court. And I have had a supervisor who doesn't like for every official on the court looking for time-out requests.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This happened twice in my game and I have never heard a coach say this. Have you ever had a coach ask for a timeout that was not during a FT saying "Time out if the ball goes in."

First time it happen I was not involved at all. My partner was in front of one of the coaches and he said to him..."I want a timeout if we get into trouble."

Then the second time I was involved. The coach asks for timeout twice (that I can tell) and the third time he says "timeout.....if the ball goes in the hole." The problem is that the player had the ball at the division line and by the time I recognized he was asking for a timeout I had already blew the whistle. The coach claimed that I should have rescinded the timeout, but I didn't. I did not see the reason to considering I was not expecting to hear further instructions. Then the coach had the nerve to suggest I should know basketball and understand such a request (I found that funny BTW).

I am wondering have you ever had a coach make a time out request with "conditions" for you to decide if the timeout should and when it should be given?

Peace

JRut,
One of my partners had the EXACT SAME SITUATION the other night. If the first part of the phrase that you hear is TIME OUT AND he/she can legally request it, you grant it. Once you grant it, you grant it. You were quite correct, in my opinion. I would suggest to the coach, "Next time, indicate the CONDITION FIRST, that alleviates the problem."

"If they score here, I would like a time out.", etc.

I ALWAYS remind the coach to "Remind me by requesting the time out when you want it just to make SURE you still want -- I will be looking at you for confirmation." Seems to work for me. It also allows the coach to back out of a timeout, if he/she desires.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

You can still watch the pack and keep an eye on the coach. Tell me that you don't look for a time out request when a team has just given up 8 straight points (or some such). Situational awareness.

Agree...but to clarify that's got nuthin' to do with the point I was trying to make.

You should be ready to grant that TO request. Abso-freaking-lutely! In this case the coach should be making you aware that he's gonna be asking for a TO. What the coach is doing though is trying to get you to do his job, not yours. What he's doing is putting the onus on you to stop play when he wants it stopped, not him. If the coach is doing what he's supposed to be doing, he should be telling his players to call the TO as soon as a shot or a FT is made. Aamof teaching his players how to call a quick TO when needed should be part of their practice schedule. I agree that he also should be letting us know that he will want a TO under those circumstances. If he does that, then we can do what we're supposed to do---> be prepared for the TO request from either him or any of his players, grant it as soon as the ball is dead or in possession of one of his players and the request is made, and also take a look at the game clock immediately on granting the TO (in case we have to add some time back on).

Situational awareness can also include letting the coach know exactly what he has to do in order to ensure that he gets that quick TO that he wants. It's as simple as saying "Coach, as soon as the ball is dead, either you or one of your players holler for the TO. We'll be ready." You can also let your partners know if you get a chance too. If all of the officials in his area do handle it that way, he'll learn in one helluva hurry the procedure that he has to follow.

Again, jmo.

[JRutledge]

JR, exactly.

What can you be situational aware of if you have never had another coach ask or request a timeout in that situation. Actually, I would not think a timeout would necessarily have been appropriate in that situation. They were not going to win with 5 seconds left and down by 11. Of course things can happen, but if this shot went in, then you would still have to make up 8 other points in less than 5 seconds. I could see if this was a one point game after the shot or even before the shot. But not with a lead that was obvious. And I will keep saying this, I gave timeouts during other portions of the game where teams would have wanted them or requested them. But they usually do that when they want the timeout, not making me have to figure out what they mean.

I will also say that if he had said first, "If the ball goes in I want a time out" then I would have probably paused. But when the first words come out of your mouth is "Time out" I do not want to ignore that just to try to hear the rest. Usually coaches are frantic anyway when they ask for a timeout. I want to give it to them when they properly. And for the record this coach is not very well respected by officials for his whining. So if I did not give him a timeout, he would have complained about that too. Just another day in the life I guess.

Peace

[just another ref]

Perhaps what I said is overstated. Coach says I want a TO after the make. I say ask for it then. He nods. FT..... I look at the coach. He has his hands in the T sign. TO granted. I feel like 9 times out of ten when the coach says I want TO after, if I simply nod, when I look again he would still be making the sign. Grant the request when it can be made.

What if coach just said "TO after this free throw."

Then his team gets the rebound. You grant the TO then his player puts it back in.

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by Brad

Why?


I've used this very simple process for the last 15 years and every successful official that I know does the same:

Coach: "Give me a time-out if it goes in."

Me: "You got it."

*** Ball goes in ***

Me: **tweet** "Time-out"


I know that this is going to bring out some Rulebook Robbies that love to get caught up in the minutiae of the rules, but this is such a great example of when common sense prevails.

I agree that common sense needs to prevail in many situations. However, in this situation we should still make the coach/player call a TO to avoid problems like I had last year:

2 seconds left, coming out of TO B coach says to me: "Whether they make or miss, I want a TO."

Me: "OK"

FT missed, B1 secures rebound.

Tweet, time out B.

Coach B flips, "I didn't call a time out! We had a wide open guy right there!"

Terrible coaching but it happened nonetheless. From now on I will always tell the coach/player, "OK, I'll be ready but you still have to call it."

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

Terrible coaching but it happened nonetheless. From now on I will always tell the coach/player, "OK, I'll be ready but you still have to request it."

Fixed it for ya'.

[Nevadaref]

When I saw Brad's post about "Rulebook Robbies", I was going to write a response and include "I wonder how Jurassic feels about this." As I scrolled further down the thread I saw that he had already confirmed my thoughts. Good to have him back, even if we don't always agree.

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Why do a lot of posters try to to justify their OWN opinion by saying that anybody that might happen to disagree with them is a (a) a rule book official (b) lacks common sense (c) is never going to be successful and rise past JV games if they don't do it their way (d) doesn't understand advantage/disadvantage (e) states that you have to be "fair" (f) says that it's "good game management"...or some other similar tactic to advance their own theories about why you can forget about the rulebook and mechanics manual and do it their way instead. Why not just say that you feel that this is the best way to handle the situation? Or that this is the way that it is handled in your area?

I've granted timeouts by the rule book for the last 50 years and every successful official that I know of has done the same.

Iow I disagree not only with your opinion but your method of justifying your opinion.

Soooooo, which one of us is right about TO's?

Imo the one that finds out what procedure is being used in their area or by the conferences that they're working in, and then following that procedure so that there is uniformity in calling. That's what I call common sense.

Just MY Opinion.

As for Brad's opinion, I think that it is very unprofessional of him to chastise others for diligently following the rules and not doing it his way.
Having a negative attitude towards officials who strive to do it by the book doesn't seem to have any positive benefits, especially at a time when John Adams is pushing for officiating to become more of a science than an art. I have to believe that Brad is someone who would be classified as one of the guys that Adams says, "call by feel" and are going to have to either change their ways or be phased out.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

When I saw Brad's post about "Rulebook Robbies", I was going to write a response and include "I wonder how Jurassic feels about this." As I scrolled further down the thread I saw that he had already confirmed my thoughts. Good to have him back, even if we don't always agree.




As for Brad's opinion, I think that it is very unprofessional of him to chastise others for diligently following the rules and not doing it his way.
Having a negative attitude towards officials who strive to do it by the book doesn't seem to have any positive benefits, especially at a time when John Adams is pushing for officiating to become more of a science than an art. I have to believe that Brad is someone who would be classified as one of the guys that Adams says, "call by feel" and are going to have to either change their ways or be phased out.

Phased out from what? Adams, last I heard, doesn't hire a single official in a single conference.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Phased out from what? Adams, last I heard, doesn't hire a single official in a single conference.

Very true as a recent SI article notes. However, Adams does control the tournament assignments, and time will tell how much he can get the different conference supervisors to buy in to his way of thinking.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Very true as a recent SI article notes. However, Adams does control the tournament assignments, and time will tell how much he can get the different conference supervisors to buy in to his way of thinking.

I'm guessing he will have more influence on younger officials who want their moments in the tourney. Look at the list of "most working" NCAA guys, though, and the old timers still dominate, many of whom aren't Adams favorites come March.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'm guessing he will have more influence on younger officials who want their moments in the tourney. Look at the list of "most working" NCAA guys, though, and the old timers still dominate, many of whom aren't Adams favorites come March.

Those are the guys whom I believe Adams will be attempting to phase out, and my comment was intended to be taken in that manner. As the two of us have now noted, only time will tell if that comes to fruition.