Time out if......
 

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 The coach claimed that I should have rescinded the timeout, but I didn't. I did not see the reason to considering I was not expecting to hear further instructions.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

Only during free throws.

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.

I Did
 

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. I was the new lead and running up the court when he made the request. It was a little awkward since I had to watch the ball coming up the court instead of watching the players in my primary.

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

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.

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?

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. :rolleyes: 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.

Pay attention to your primary. It's not your job to monitor for the conditional time-out.

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.

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

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

I do the same. Hasn't bit me in 23 years. I'll still look in the direction of the coach, though, to see if he's changed his mind.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

Fixed it for ya'. :D

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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?

I meant "look who's working the most games" not the ones in March. For the Welmers, et al, they are looking at quantity and they get all they want. Methinks they've already accepted they aren't getting to a Final Four and will just keep on keeping on.

Yeah, but I've read a couple articles on Welmer and he has not be happy about his tournament assignments.

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.

1) And where does it say that "we" and your "friends" get to define what "common sense" is? Just because it is your opinion doesn't automatically make that opinion "common sense". That was the point that I was trying to make.

2) If you don't have a negative attitude with officials who strive to do it by the book, then why are intimating that they lack "common sense" and are "Rulebook Robbies:eek: if they do so? :confused:

Maybe your TASO chapter allows coaches to use that procedure but there are still a lot of associations out there that instruct their officials to go by the rules when granting TO's. I belong to one of 'em. Imo that doesn't mean that all of those associations now lack common sense and are composed of nothing but "Rulebook Robbies", just because you and your friends say so. We sureasheck do try to get our people to have situational awareness and be ready for the quick TO request. But we also follow the same philosophy that BITS so eloquently stated "I'm not the freakin' maitre d'; I don't take reservations for timeouts."

Jeff called the play using his training and experience. And his training and experience tells him that he made the correct and expected call in the area that he officiates in. That's good enough for me, and I sureasheck can't see where he could possibly lack common sense for calling it that way. And...if you want to handle it differently in your area, that's also good enough for me if your way is the expected call there also. I certainly don't think that you would lack "common sense" just because you made the expected call, and your "expected call" happened to be different than my "expected call".

Again Brad, that's just MY opinion......

Great point. You are wise beyond your years.:)

Again this is jmo, but knowing the book is the base for everything that we do. If you don't know the rules, howinthehell can you be expected to apply them properly?

A good official knows the rules and has also learned how and when to apply those rules.

True, but Welmer is older and will soon not be around like many of those other officials. He already got hurt last year and missed most of the year last season. And there were folks that took his games last season. And Welmer is about the only exception that works a lot of games and never works the tournament very far. Almost everyone else that works a lot of games or conference tournaments work deep into the tournament. Those guys in many cases sat home for most of the tournament. And if Adams does not assign those guys anymore, it is going to be hard for those guys to be justified when they will not see them deep into the playoffs. So I think by default you will see different guys as a result of what is assigned consistently in the tournament.

And That Goes For Girls Games, Too ...
 

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.