Time out if......

[Adam]

Only during free throws.

[just another ref]

It seems to happen every night on a free throw.

"Time out if he makes it."

"You have to ask for it then."

So far, they always have. Quantity is not a problem.

"TIME OUT! TIME OUT! TIME OUT! TIME OUT!.............." until it is granted.

In the OP, I see no difference in this and the case play where the coach yells
"side out" and is mistakenly granted the timeout. If you believe he really did not ask for timeout, and is not just trying to weasel out of it, rescind it and move on.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by just another ref

It seems to happen every night on a free throw.

"Time out if he makes it."

"You have to ask for it then."

So far, they always have. Quantity is not a problem.

"TIME OUT! TIME OUT! TIME OUT! TIME OUT!.............." until it is granted.

In the OP, I see no difference in this and the case play where the coach yells
"side out" and is mistakenly granted the timeout. If you believe he really did not ask for timeout, and is not just trying to weasel out of it, rescind it and move on.

He didn't say side out. He said "Time out." And if those words are going to come out of his mouth, then he needs to understand that he might not be totally heard and that he has to be prepared for an official to not understand any other further instructions. I have no problem if they ask during a FT when the ball is not active and moving. But to ask for a timeout during a hotly contested game, is a bit much. I would do that same thing again, he needs to realize that if he wants a timeout with conditions, request the timeout when you want it. I was standing right next to him, what was different at this point of the game as the many other timeouts I called with a coach standing right behind me (and I seemed to be calling a lot of them in this game BTW)?

Peace

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He didn't say side out. He said "Time out." And if those words are going to come out of his mouth, then he needs to understand that he might not be totally heard and that he has to be prepared for an official to not understand any other further instructions.

Peace

I understand perfectly and I agree completely with this statement. I don't think the coach could complain when you did what you did.

The point of the case play however, is that the official misunderstood what the coach said and granted a timeout which was not requested. Your situation has this in common with the case play. If you had heard what he said, you would have ignored him, right? I would have.

This is one of an infinite number of situation which is not definitively covered and I say do what you think is best at the time and plan to be happy with it later.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He didn't say side out. He said "Time out." And if those words are going to come out of his mouth, then he needs to understand that he might not be totally heard and that he has to be prepared for an official to not understand any other further instructions. I have no problem if they ask during a FT when the ball is not active and moving. But to ask for a timeout during a hotly contested game, is a bit much. I would do that same thing again, he needs to realize that if he wants a timeout with conditions, request the timeout when you want it. I was standing right next to him, what was different at this point of the game as the many other timeouts I called with a coach standing right behind me (and I seemed to be calling a lot of them in this game BTW)?

Peace

Quick read on this, not sure if by rule, that a time out can have a condition on it "if he makes it" If I remember there might a ruling to support this.

I'll wait for the out West 'official' verification.

I've been duped into this before with "if we get the rebound, I want a TO". I was so focused on his request that the split second his player may or may not have had possession. I granted a TO. The player really didn't clearly have possession. Lesson learned.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by fullor30

Quick read on this, not sure if by rule, that a time out can have a condition on it "if he makes it" If I remember there might a ruling to support this.

Yes, there's a ruling on this.

I compromise -- I just look at the coach and/or ask, "Still want it?" when the condition is met.

[fullor30]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Yes, there's a ruling on this.

I compromise -- I just look at the coach and/or ask, "Still want it?" when the condition is met.

Agreed

[JRutledge]

I called the timeout based on what I heard, not what I thought I heard. And it was clear I heard timeout and the coach never denied that he requested one. If he had said he called a play, then maybe I would have not stuck with the timeout. But the coach wanted me to hear him say more words after he said the words "timeout." In all my years of officiating which I have been blessed to have done varsity most of those years, I have never heard a coach make such a request and expect a result as I had experienced here. Now that being said if this was a FT, then it would have been easier to hear him. But remember, he said this with the ball at half court. I did not give him a timeout with the first couple of times because I was not sure he was making a request (my back was turned). When I heard him for sure, I granted the timeout. Also keep in mind this was a loud gym, with a team that had won a State title the year before being challenged by a team by a team that was not supposed to hang with them (undefeated too) and there had been several requests for timeouts in this game under duress. It made perfect sense that there would be a timeout request. It did not make sense to me that he wanted it based on a shot that had not been taken yet or even attempted. I do not agree that this has much to do with common sense, because common sense has never told me to give a timeout during live and active action other than a FT. And as I have said before, even when they ask for a timeout during a FT, I still ask them to repeat the request because I have always been concerned they might change their mind. And I want to take the burden off of me to have to think through why they want a timeout. That has worked for me for years. Never had a problem until now.

Peace

[Brad]

Originally Posted by just another ref

"Time out if he makes it."

"You have to ask for it then."

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.

[KJUmp]

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.

2nd year ref here. Not being critical of Brad's approach, always appreciate reading about accepted "common sense" approaches to game management that are posted by vets on the board that are accepted and work (with all due recognition to any local mechanics/procedures that take precedence).
That being said, by questions to vets...is this a good way to handle this type of sitch? Pros? Cons?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Brad

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.

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.

[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.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

I didn't chastise anyone -- I simply said that some people will get caught up in the letter of the law and focus on that instead of common sense. We call these guys "Rulebook Robbies" -- a friend of mine came up with the name and it means officials that are so caught up in the rules they get lost in the actual game.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Having a negative attitude towards officials who strive to do it by the book doesn't seem to have any positive benefits

I don't have a negative attitude towards officials who strive to do it by the book. The Rulebook Robbies are the officials that focus on minute things such as making sure that shirttails are tucked in, but missing the big plays that matter in a game.

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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.

Not really sure where you are coming up with this or what it means. What was that about chastising?