The Official Forum - Ugly Timeout Situation

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Ugly Timeout Situation - Discussed Before (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/60232-ugly-timeout-situation-discussed-before.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle (Post 709735)

Yeah, me too. What a waste of time. I've never seen a partner who asked for "speaking captains" use that information for anything. Why bother? Heck, I don't even know anybody who notifies the captains that we're about to begin. And we're required to do that.

Come along to my games. I notify the captains we're about to begin. They usually look confused.

One thing I haven't had in quite some time (at least a decade) is a requested defensive matchup. Ready for that one, too. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 709799)

...
One thing I haven't had in quite some time (at least a decade) is a requested defensive matchup. Ready for that one, too. :D

Never been asked either, but I usually give a few extra seconds before administering the throw-in or free throw. Sometimes I'll say "you guys ready?"

Stoopid NFHS Rulebook Editor ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 709799)

One thing I haven't had in quite some time (at least a decade) is a requested defensive matchup.

That's because the rule somehow disappeared from the rulebook for a few years. I guess that the NFHS was experiencing a paper shortage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 709827)

That's because the rule somehow disappeared from the rulebook for a few years. I guess that the NFHS was experiencing a paper shortage.

And then it magically reappeared. They must've found the extra ream of paper in the crawlspace right next to the Festivus pole.

Apologies To Cosmo Kramer

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 709836)

And then it magically reappeared. They must've found the extra ream of paper in the crawlspace right next to the Festivus pole.

No. It was a Festivus miracle. Giddyup!

For IAABO Officials Eyes Only ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 709277)

Since the Syracuse problem back in February, we've been advised by one of our interpreters to reverse this point of emphasis:

Officials must ensure that the time-out request is coming from a player or the head coach of the team in control. Additionally, during live ball situations, it is imperative the officials ensure player control before granting a time-out.

In other words, here in our little corner of Connecticut, the last thing that we do is ensure player control before granting the timeout. You won't find this in either the NFHS, nor the IAABO, manual, or rulebook. This should help us avoid the situation that Mr. Cahill found himself in back in February.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 709289)

Unfortunately, while you're doing so you're also avoiding the purpose and intent of the rule. And in some situations, you may also be penalizing a team that has asked for a legitimate TO which you have refused without any concrete rules basis for doing so. If a team has player control at the time of a time-out request, you have no rules justification to deny that request. Are there any other rules that your little corner of Connecticut has chosen to change?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 709312)

If you're looking at the bench to make sure that it is indeed the correct team requesting the timeout, and that it is indeed the head coach who is making the request, then how do you know that the correct team has player control, without looking back at the court, and the player in control? Your right, we are not following any NFHS rule, or for that matter, any NFHS, or IAABO, mechanics, but the wordng of these references is "fuzzy".

The spirit and purpose of the rule is to ensure that the correct team, the head coach of said team, and a player on said team has player control, all three at the same time. Tough to do if you have to visually observe the team bench, which forces, in some, but not all, cases, the official to turn away from the action on the court.

Just found this on the IAABO website:

A player or a Head Coach may request a time-out. The request may be oral or visual.

An official may grant the time-out if the ball is live and the clock is running when:

(a) the ball is in control (holding or dribbling) or is at the disposal of a player of his/her
team.

(b) the ball is dead, unless replacement of a disqualified, or injured player(s), or a player
is directed to leave the game is pending, and a substitute(s) is available and required.

Upon hearing/seeing the request for time-out, the official next must check/view the
situation and rule whether or not the request can be granted.

It's not in the NFHS rulebook. It's probably not in the NFHS mechanics manual. It's not in the current IAABO mechanics manual. But it is on the international website. That's the citation that IAABO members need to know. You NFHS guys are on your own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 709853)

What's your point?:confused:

I just said we do the same thing. If an oral/visual request is made by a coach while one of his players is in control of a live ball when the clock is running, we also check/view the situation to rule whether the request may be granted. If we visually see a TO signal, we immediately grant the TO request. If we orally hear a TO request, we check/view to make sure it was the head coach that made the request. If it was, we immediately grant the request. That's the correct procedure to use under NFHS rules.

Nowhere in that handout from IAABO can I see where IAABO wants anybody to do anything differently than what I just said above. Nor do I see anything in there that resembles what your little corner of Connecticut is doing. Can you point me to where IAABO is saying that you ALSO have to check/view AGAIN that player control is still being maintained AFTER check/viewing that a legal TO request was made before granting that TO request?

Methinks your little corner of Connecticut is also using Bainsey's rule interpreter. Or maybe the 2 IAABO guys from REF60. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee (Post 709873)

Can you point me to where IAABO is saying that you also have to check/view again that player control is still being maintained AFTER check/viewing that a legal TO request was made before granting that TO request?

The word "next" tells me that.

Jurassic Referee: Nice post on REF60. How come they didn't delete your post? Does your reputation extend that far in cyberspace?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac (Post 709884)

1) The word "next" tells me that.

2) Jurassic Referee: Nice post on REF60. How come they didn't delete your post? Does your reputation extend that far in cyberspace?

1) There's where we disagree. I read the word "next" as saying you should check to see if it's a valid TO request next after ensuring player control. If it is a valid TO request, there is no further "next" that I can see saying that you have to check again to see if player control is still being maintained. You simply grant the legal TO request. I'd ask your rules interpreter to send that one up the line for a further interpretation if I wuz you.

2) No, hopefully they just recognized a valid question. I don't have a clue why they would delete something identical from you. What still bothers me at that site is that the authors of those articles will never come back and answer valid questions. That's just wrong. And that's why I never go there unless someone asks me about something that was posted there.