Time Outs

[surehands]

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

[Jurassic Referee]

When they have none left.

NFHS rule 2-11-6.

[BillyMac]

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."

[Adam]

Are these test questions?

[chseagle]

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by chseagle

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

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.

[chseagle]

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.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

[chseagle]

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.

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

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.

[SCalScoreKeeper]

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.

[knockitoff]

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

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by knockitoff

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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......

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

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 put more time and effort into looking up the correct rules citation than the OP did in posting his question.

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.

[curlingrocks]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

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."

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.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

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 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?