Time Outs
 

When should an official notify the coach of the number of time outs they have left?

When they have none left.

NFHS rule 2-11-6.

Less Is Best ...
 

Some advocate advising the head coach when he has one left. I'm not one of them. If you, or the scorekeeper, screwup, tell the coach he has one left, when he really has none left, and he uses that "one left", he's going to be one pissed off coach when you charge his team with a technical foul for requesting, and being granted, an excess timeout. Stick to the rulebook, "Coach, that was your last timeout."

Are these test questions?

From a scorer's point of view, the scorer should be in continual communication about TOs & Fouls to the coach.

However too many scorers at the lower levels have no idea what it means to communicate whatsoever, or they're too busy with their own things to even care about letting the coach know.

Ah, no, the scorer shouldn't.

The scorer's job is to work with the officials, record fouls, keep score, and record timeouts.

The coach is free to have a statistician on his bench to record the same information and verify it with the scorer from time to time.

The coach should only go to the table when allowed by rule. He cannot go to the table to check on fouls or timeouts. Asst. coaches should only be allowed at the table during halftime. At no other time should an asst. ever be at the table.

A player's 3rd, 4th, & 5th fouls & when down to 1 time out is how I was taught for when to communicate to the coach. Some coaches would rather have every foul known to them. That was 10+ years ago when I was last scorer. Times change as do the rules.

In the situations I am talking about are lower-level games where there's only one coach for a team (no statistician). The scorers' table is close to the benches where communication is possible.

Only for Varsity have I seen statisticians being used, where they are at the old scorers' table with laptops & printer. I have never seen a statistician approach the scorers' table to compare with the scorebook.

Here it is common practice in a tight game for the officials to ask the scorer and then notify the coaches how many timeouts they have remaining. I also communicate with the bench regarding fouls but only if a kid has 2 first half fouls, 3 and 4 fouls. One of the assistants charts fouls on the bench as a check to my book in case I can't get their attention. When I do stats for JV girls I also do this so that the coach knows about foul trouble before the scorer opens their mouth.

This question (and another of Sure's) look alot like our "Tournament Consideration" exam questions.

If it's an open book exam (and it would appear to be), what's the issue with asking? The idea behind open book exams is that the process of finding the answer teaches the student. If that's not what they want, they need to proctor the exam.

The issue is that the answer can usually be found in either the rule book or case book without a great degree of effort being involved either. And that's how you learn the rules. You sureasheck aren't learning 'em just by asking questions here and copying the answers that you're given. In that case the student isn't really learning a damn thing.

The idea is to put a little time and effort into learning the rules. I might have put more time and effort into looking up the correct rules citation than the OP did in posting his question. Jmo but you should post questions after you fail to find them in the book(s).

My apologies to surehands if he did try to look up the answers first......

I agree that looking for the answer in the rules book and case book is better, but again if that's what you want proctor the exam. If you don't proctor the exam, all you're really testing is whether the take is capable of finding the answer in time. And you will learn from that process, but not as well.

If getting rules explained by other officials is wrong, we need to just shut the whole forum down. If you want to test whether your officials know the rules, you need to proctor the exam.

I always say "Coach, the official book says you are out of timeouts." Using the same logic, if he really has one left, I feel I'm more off the hook by saying it this way.

I never said, or implied, that getting rules explained by other officials is wrong....except in the case where a poster is doing so to avoid opening up the rule books and doing a little work on their own. I have no idea if that is the case with regards to surehands, but if it is, he's only cheating himself. You learn the rules by studying the rules. If you're not sure, ask away. But do some work first. There are no shortcuts.

As I also said, just my opinion.

We clear now where I'm coming from?

I'm clear on where you're coming from. I just don't find it a consistent philosophy. I don't think getting rules explained by other officials is ever wrong. It's just sometimes not the best way to learn.

The thought process of many people seems to be that it's illegitimate to ask a question on the forum that's a test question. Every scenario that's posted on this forum could just be a cleverly disguised test question. Which would make the entire forum illegitimate if you accepted that premise.

Personally, having worked with far too many officials who wouldn't even put in the effort to ask on a forum in the first place, I'm glad to see the effort being made in the first place. Should we encourage them to look for the answers in the rules book and case book? Yes. But let's be glad they they aren't being willfully ignorant in the first place.

In short, I'd like to see fewer posts with "That looks like a test question." which is just a pointless accusation and more posts like yours with rule citations.

I'm sorry, where was the accusation in my post?

I read this as a accusation that he is posting test questions. I'm not sure how else you would read it.

As a question designed to get more insight into the new member so we can better help him. You read too much into it and in the process commit the same offense of which you accused me.

Ok, so your intentions were good. That doesn't change that it's an accusation. Why not just answer his question? Or at least answer his question and ask if he's boning up for a test?

You're going to have to explain to me how I choose to accuse the OP of posting test questions rather than answering the question.

For the record.....
 

I have nuthin' against anyone posting single test question here. But if they do so without any attempt at all to look up the correct answers first in the appropriate rulebook, then they're just using us to do the work that they should be doing themselves. And the only person that they're cheating is themselves. They're not learning a damn thing.

And they do need to think about that, whether they like it or not.

And as I said, I'm not accusing surehands of that because I have no idea whether that was the case in this particular thread. What I said is a general statement that is just MY opinion and I ain't gonna change MY opinion.

No, you were making an accusation against me. That's what you accused me of doing in a generic sense.

I asked him if they were test questions. That accuses him of what exactly?

I didn't need to answer his question, it had already been answered by JR.

Of posting test questions. I'm not sure why that's hard to see.

Let me ask this: what benefit to the discussion is it to know whether it's a test question or just a point he's unclear on? Does it change your answer?

No, I asked him if they were test questions. I didn't accusing him of jack. If I wanted to accuse him, I'd have worded it differently; perhaps "hey, that sure looks like a test question." Saying I'm accusing him of something implies that I think there's something wrong with it. Yet I've never said that, not in this or any other thread.

It could change how I word the answer. More likely, it would change what information I add to the answer.

You're making a distinction without a difference. You may not have meant to imply a negative, but it was inferred by me. Chalk it up to the difficulties of text only communication. You can't ask if something is a test question without the people hearing the question thinking he thinks that looks like a test question.

I still don't see what difference it makes if you don't think there's something wrong with it.

How the hell was it an accusation? It's a simple question. You must be a friend of Randy Quaid. :rolleyes:

The fact that you inferred something I neither said nor implied is not my fault.

I guess that depends on whether you want to communicate or not.

The receiver bares a responsibility to properly listen/read and interpret....at least if you want effective 2-way commuication. ;)

And if there were a significant number of people who completely misconstrued what I wrote, I'd accept that the problem may well be on my end. If I say "eagles" and you hear "rabbits," it's not my problem unless I really need you to know that I said "eagles."