Timeout situation

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

As a side note is anyone else running in in that situation to tell your partner that the HC is not the one who called the TO if the whole bench is yelling for it? Unless the HC is adamant that he didn't call it (which I'm guessing he would not be in this situation because he keeps the ball and probably wouldn't be quick enough on his feet to consider the whole IW/POI) and I know for sure that that is the case, I'm letting my partner go ahead with granting the TO. Otherwise you basically give them what they wanted without charging them the TO. Agree with others though that this is an awful rule (HC allowed to request TO) that I wish they would change immediately!

Agreed, although I don't like the idea of allowing them to benefit and not get charged the TO even if he does insist he didn't call it.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Agreed, although I don't like the idea of allowing them to benefit and not get charged the TO even if he does insist he didn't call it.

Had a similar situation several years ago where Team A down by three, scores with approx 5 seconds left to go down by a point. I am C opposite and right away I am looking for Team A HC to request a TO. I look and he is jumping up and down with his hands over his head and appearing to me to be signalling a TO, although it was so loud I could not hear what he was screaming. So I run in and grant a TO.....BUT....he was out of timeouts!!! Of course he swore up and down that he was signalling to his team what defense to set-up. We huddled and decided that since I didn't know for sure this is what he was doing we could not tech them so we went with IW and gave Team B the ball for throw-in. Fortunately they got it in and ended up winning, but I learned two valuable lessons that day:

1) Late in the game ALWAYS know how many timeouts each team has left - one of my partners had just granted Team A their last a few moments before and didn't tell his partners, but now I make it a point to find out for myself.

2) Do not grant a time-out unless you are 100% (or at least 83.216% IF they have TO's remaining) that this is what they are signalling/calling for!

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

1) Late in the game ALWAYS know how many timeouts each team has left - one of my partners had just granted Team A their last a few moments before and didn't tell his partners, but now I make it a point to find out for myself.

2) Do not grant a time-out unless you are 100% (or at least 83.216% IF they have TO's remaining) that this is what they are signalling/calling for!

1 shouldn't matter, other than awareness. If you know he's out you're less likely to grant a phantom timeout. But if he's requesting it, grant it regardless of what he has left.

2. I want to be 100% sure anyway, because I don't want to have any doubt when he tells me he didn't want one. There are lots of situations in a game where a coach would just love to have you kill the ball and not charge him a TO.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

1 shouldn't matter, other than awareness. If you know he's out you're less likely to grant a phantom timeout. But if he's requesting it, grant it regardless of what he has left.

2. I want to be 100% sure anyway, because I don't want to have any doubt when he tells me he didn't want one. There are lots of situations in a game where a coach would just love to have you kill the ball and not charge him a TO.

But 1) does matter for the very reason you give yourself - the phantom timeout which is what I had - or allegedly had, still not 100% convinced that he wasn't signalling timeout, but I digress. If you know he is out you are only going to grant it if you are positive that is what he is calling for. Agree if he calls it give it to him regardless, but there will be no question that is what he wanted.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

But 1) does matter for the very reason you give yourself - the phantom timeout which is what I had - or allegedly had, still not 100% convinced that he wasn't signalling timeout, but I digress. If you know he is out you are only going to grant it if you are positive that is what he is calling for. Agree if he calls it give it to him regardless, but there will be no question that is what he wanted.

I see your point, and I agree. However, I try to apply that to all situations regardless. If I'm not 100% sure it's the HC, I'm not granting it until I'm sure.

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

But 1) does matter for the very reason you give yourself - the phantom timeout which is what I had - or allegedly had, still not 100% convinced that he wasn't signalling timeout, but I digress. If you know he is out you are only going to grant it if you are positive that is what he is calling for. Agree if he calls it give it to him regardless, but there will be no question that is what he wanted.

If he had one timeout left, would you have granted him his "phantom" time-out?

IMO you shouldn't have, because you didn't grant one when he had zero.

Snaqs is right: the number of TOs should not matter. Be 100% sure every time.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by sseltser

If he had one timeout left, would you have granted him his "phantom" time-out?

IMO you shouldn't have, because you didn't grant one when he had zero.

Snaqs is right: the number of TOs should not matter. Be 100% sure every time.

If he had one time out left do you think he would be adamant that he didn't call one with 4 seconds left, clock running, opponent with the ball out of bounds and his team down 1? Sort of irrelevant.

What do you do then in a packed gym when you can't hear and you have a coach jumping up and down signalling and you aren't "100% sure" whether he is calling TO or signalling to his defense? B/C a lot of signals look a lot like a "T" signal - are you going to say "coach I couldn't discern with 100% certainty that you really wanted a timeout so I didn't grant you one?" Or do you grant it when you are "almost certain" especially given the game situation? It is nice to say be 100% sure, but in reality that is not possible.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

What do you do then in a packed gym when you can't hear and you have a coach jumping up and down signalling and you aren't "100% sure" whether he is calling TO or signalling to his defense? B/C a lot of signals look a lot like a "T" signal - are you going to say "coach I couldn't discern with 100% certainty that you really wanted a timeout so I didn't grant you one?" Or do you grant it when you are "almost certain" especially given the game situation? It is nice to say be 100% sure, but in reality that is not possible.

Frankly, if he's not signalling with his hands and saying it, he's not likely to get it in a noisy gym. It's on him to make it obvious to everyone; precisely because there are too many plays that sound like "timeout."

[sseltser]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

What do you do then in a packed gym when you can't hear and you have a coach jumping up and down signalling and you aren't "100% sure" whether he is calling TO or signalling to his defense? Or do you grant it when you are "almost certain" especially given the game situation?

I've had this happen.. coach standing there in the "double foul" pose. It turned out he wanted a full timeout. My partner got an earful, but his response was: Coach, Neither of us knew you wanted a timeout. I'm sorry. Would you like one now?

Am I always 100% absolutely sure? No, probably not. But hands together over the top of the head and jumping doesn't give me enough certainty. Maybe its a HTBT, but I don't see granting this one.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

What do you do then in a packed gym when you can't hear and you have a coach jumping up and down signalling and you aren't "100% sure" whether he is calling TO or signalling to his defense?

Call nothing, exactly the same as you should do for any call of any kind at any time during the game that you aren't sure of.

If you call something under those circumstances, it's called "guessing" and that's really not recommended.

[Ignats75]

If the situation developed as the OP described, I would also warn the HC to get control of his bench. The AssCoach gave his team an unwarranted advantage by trying to trick the officials into stopping the clock/play before the other team has a chance to tie up the girl. This is unsporting behvior.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

Had a similar situation several years ago where Team A down by three, scores with approx 5 seconds left to go down by a point. I am C opposite and right away I am looking for Team A HC to request a TO. I look and he is jumping up and down with his hands over his head and appearing to me to be signalling a TO, although it was so loud I could not hear what he was screaming. So I run in and grant a TO.....BUT....he was out of timeouts!!! Of course he swore up and down that he was signalling to his team what defense to set-up. We huddled and decided that since I didn't know for sure this is what he was doing we could not tech them so we went with IW and gave Team B the ball for throw-in.

What doesthe number of TO's a team has left got to do with anything?

If you didn't know for sure that a head coach wanted a TO, whatintheheck were you doing granting him one in the first place? That's the question!

You screwed up. It happens. Learn from it and move on.

[slow whistle]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

What doesthe number of TO's a team has left got to do with anything?

If you didn't know for sure that a head coach wanted a TO, whatintheheck were you doing granting him one in the first place? That's the question!

You screwed up. It happens. Learn from it and move on.

Agreed I totally screwed up and did learn from it as I said. IMO there is a gray area here - what are the approved "visual signals" (8-3) that a coach can use to signal TO? Is it just the "T"? Is it the "double foul" signal? Is it the "30-second timeout" signal? I think in regular situations we all grant timeouts based on any one of these without issue. The problem comes in in a situation like mine where you have what looks to be a "T" signal is claimed not to be by the coach. Would you have issued the technical? What if the signal he was giving at the time was his "T" signal, just slightly sloppy? To me this is where knowing how many time-outs are left is important. Agree with you by rule it doesn't matter in terms of whether or not to grant it, however, whether or not to grant the TO requires judgement, and knowing all of the pieces of the puzzle is important to exercise good judgement. Again, not to beat a dead horse, but I feel like officials are really hung out to dry by this rule.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

IMO there is a gray area here - what are the approved "visual signals" (8-3) that a coach can use to signal TO? Is it just the "T"? Is it the "double foul" signal? Is it the "30-second timeout" signal? I think in regular situations we all grant timeouts based on any one of these without issue. The problem comes in in a situation like mine where you have what looks to be a "T" signal is claimed not to be by the coach. Would you have issued the technical? What if the signal he was giving at the time was his "T" signal, just slightly sloppy? To me this is where knowing how many time-outs are left is important. Agree with you by rule it doesn't matter in terms of whether or not to grant it, however, whether or not to grant the TO requires judgement, and knowing all of the pieces of the puzzle is important to exercise good judgement.

Make it part of your pre-game. Agree amongst yourself that you will all accept any of the 3 signals noted above as being valid TO signals. And then have the R mention that to both head coaches, also pre-game. Just tell the head coaches that if they want a TO granted, we need an unambiguous request either verbally or by approved signal. And if there's any doubt at all, they ain't getting one.

And as for the # of TO's remaining, the scorer by rule(2-11-6) has to let one of the officials know when a team has taken their last TO. That official then has to inform that team and it's head coach that he's out of TO's, and the official should also let his partners know that at the same time. Make sure pre-game that the scorer knows that this is his duty and he has to do it.

An ounce of prevention yada yada yada......

[T14]

Originally Posted by slow whistle

1) Late in the game ALWAYS know how many timeouts each team has left - one of my partners had just granted Team A their last a few moments before and didn't tell his partners, but now I make it a point to find out for myself.

I thought I'd read it somewhere on this site, but it was offered that how many TOs a team has left isn't important. It's only important to know when they have used their last one.

That way, I can inform the team and HC at the same time (in their huddle, or as it breaks up) "COACH, NO TIMEOUTS LEFT."*

I like the idea of pre-gaming/reminding the scorer's table to notify the officials when a team uses it's last timeout. I can check the book, confirm the side, and inform the coach - and his team - immediately of that fact.

*and of course relay all of this to my partners