Time out if......

[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.

[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.

[JRutledge]

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.

Not really true. There were a lot of old timers that did not even work the tournament and there were many if they did work any games, they got one game. Many officials that worked further in the NCAA Tournament were newer or not the "big names" that worked in the past. And I think we can all think of some people that are big names and see the games they got this past season. And if they go to a regional assigning process, then you will have even fewer of the big names working if the NCAA controls the process on some level.

Peace

[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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Brad

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.

I will just add this to this comment. For the record I went to several camps for college conferences the past few years. And a lot of supervisors made a big deal over shirt tails being tucked in. It really depends on who you work with if some of these rules are big deals. For example the uniform rules in my state are a huge issue because everyone was put on notice by the State Tournament issue and it was made a national story. So yes, an official like me that desires to work in the tournament in my state has to follow those rules pretty heavily.

That being said, I do not see how this has anything to do with being a rulebook Robbie as you put it. Common sense has nothing to do with a request that is not common, but makes no sense. If a coach wants me to do his job for him, then that is his problem. But if he wants everyone to follow his request, follow some protocol. Common sense should have told him or any coach that an official is not trying to follow instructions; they are focusing on other things as well. And since the rule does state that if you grant a timeout based on a coach requesting a timeout, not based on conditions that most of us may have never heard before.

And I did ask around with many veteran officials and I have yet to hear anyone say not to grant the timeout and these were not what I would call "rulebook officials." That being said the opinions I have read here are very interesting.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Brad

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.



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.



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

Your tone of your posts make it seem as if someone can't be a rule book stickler AND get the big plays right. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Your tone of your posts make it seem as if someone can't be a rule book stickler AND get the big plays right. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

Exactly. It seems that there is a group of officials who don't possess real strong knowledge of the rules and get by on their people skills. Sadly, they attempt to ridicule those who do by calling them names, instead of just working to correct their own weakness.

I have to ask wouldn't it be better to have both?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Your tone of your posts make it seem as if someone can't be a rule book stickler AND get the big plays right. Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive.

They're not, but there are officials out there who would work by the rule book in exclusion to better ways of doing things. Some even take what's in the rule book and try to apply the most draconian response without even considering how it affects the game.

A moment I remember was a meeting I attended recently where someone asked a question about an illegal t-shirt on a starter only noticed when the kid took off his warmups just prior to the game. One guy wanted to hit the coach with a technical foul since the player wasn't properly attired. Another wanted to send the starter out of the game to remove the t-shirt and require a sub to enter. Me? I'd just delay the game for 20 seconds while the kid slipped out and took the t-shirt off.

This morphed into a discussion about shirts being untucked. Same official said he would send the kid off and ask for a sub. I asked him how that is better than sliding up behind the kid and quietly asking him to put the shirt in.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I'd just delay the game for 20 seconds while the kid slipped out and took the t-shirt off.

I hate the "Don't Take Off Your Jersey On The Court Rule". The NFHS should have just issued a casebook play regarding a player taking off his jersey in disgust after being disqualified. Charge him with an unsporting technical foul. In my opinion, the NFHS has thrown out the baby with the bathwater.