Ugly Timeout Situation - Discussed Before
 

Team Black is moving the ball from backcourt to frontcourt and gets trapped at the division line. I am in the Trail opposite table and my partner is in the Lead tableside and in front of Black's bench. He here's a timeout request and double checks to make sure it is coming from Black and that they have player control of the ball. In both cases they do.

Before he hits hit whistle, the ball is stolen by White and then my partner hits his whistle with the timeout as White has the ball. I go to him and ask if he double checked to make sure Black was in control of the ball when he heard the request (as I didn't hear it so I wasn't any help). He said yesso we gave the ball to Black. Needless to say the Coach for White wasn't happy, which whats new?, and he continued his argument even after the game at half court

Any thoughts???

Yep. Until they change this stupid rule and stop allowing coachs to request TO, we'll continue to have this issue.

From "POE #3 - TIME-OUTS" in the 2008-09 rule book:
The proper granting of time-outs continue to be of great concern. During live ball situations, it is imperative the officials ensure player control before granting a time-out. Additionally, officials must ensure that the time-out request is coming from a player or the head coach of the team in control.

Your partner fully followed the directives given to us by the NFHS rulesmakers. He did both and then blew his whistle. If the coach has a problem with that, tell him to go whine at the stoopid monkey rulesmaker that dreamed up this crappy rule, not the outstanding gentleman in stripes who did exactly what he was supposed to do.

Why Was Syracuse Wearing Black Uniforms ???
 

A few questions. Was your partner John Cahill? Was the Black Team coach Jim Boeheim?

Unfortunately, The "Stoopid" Rule Will Never Change ...
 

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.

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?

Lah me.......:rolleyes:

My Second Grade Teacher Could Do This, She Had Eyes In The Back Of Her Head ...
 

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.

You know there's player control because you're looking at the court when the request is given. If you're looking to the coach to verify that, then looking back to the court *again*......never mind, JR have covered it quite well already.

Last night we had a nutcutter, my first one this season. This exact thing happened in OT. Player trapped in the corner, I'm in front of the bench, 2-person trail. I hear a timeout request, player clearly has possession, I look to the bench to see the coach trying to get my attention, verifying he was, indeed requesting a timeout. By this time air went into whistle, the ball was knocked loose. I couldn't possibly care -- it's a legally requested (and granted) time out, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, I took grief. Yes, I told the other coach that the player had the ball when the coach requested the timeout. Yes, the other coach disagreed and was annoyed. No, I don't care. Like I told the other coach, I'd do the same thing if he was the one requesting the timeout. Until they change the rule, I'm going to continue granting the timeout in this situation because that's what I'm supposed to do.

Slight Twist ...
 

And what if the ball is not in your primary coverage area?

Who cares? As soon as I think I hear the coach requesting a timeout, I *look* for the basketball. I have good eyes (I can see the sun and it's 93 million miles away).

One of the things I try to do at the Captains and Coaches pre-game meeting is to say: "Players, you know your coach's voice better than we do. If he/she is requesting a time out and your team has control, you can call for time out." Very few players do this, but it doesn't hurt to bring the point up. Live ball time out requests by player only, would be a vast improvement and would lessen the confrontational opportunities. during a typical game.

That would extend my 10-second captain's meeting.

*cue miniature violin*

While I'm at it, I can ask them to help out with loose balls, point out all of the floor markings, and remind them not to hand check.

Don't forget "White you don't talk to blue and blue you don't talk to white."

Keeping to the topic...what about a situation where you have a timeout request from a coach and you recognize that it is coming from his due to his distinctive voice. I had this last year on a scrum for a loose ball right in front of the home team bench. Just as his player gained possession of the ball, the coach bellows for a timeout. I immediately recognized who it was coming from due to his voice and the situation and granted the timeout without looking back to confirm it was him. Should I still visually verify in this type of situation?

I wouldn't. I have a few coaches I could hear over jet engine activity in the area and when they request a timeout I know it's them and grant the request immediately.

Others mileage may vary, though.

I make the time up by just saying "1", "2", "3", or "1&1" on FTs.

What if his twin brother is up in the 10th row yelling "Timeout, Timeout"??

Well in this case, his twin brother would have been yelling in my ear because the coach was no more than two or three feet behind me. ;)

Misty Water-Colored Memories, Of The Way We Were
 

The way it was before the Gap ???

When In Rome ...
 

We've been told, "No". But please check your local listings.

Threadjack alert
 

2nd year. Mostly F/JV a few Varsity this year.

I think a good pre-game conference with players and coaches would be helpful. Is there such a thing?

Actually, we had the point of transition to worry about back then, too. And the 5 seconds to inbound did not end on the release.

The lack of action rule. Ahh, memories.

My first season was the first year of the 3-point shot in PA. All the old, crusty vets of the day had such a hard time looking at the feet to see if the shot was a 2 or a 3. That was easy for me - I just screwed everything else up. :D

You took grief ONLY because it's a bad rule. You did absolutely everything perfectly that the NFHS rulesmakers had instructed you...and all of us..... to do. It's a legally requested and granted time-out as far as the rules are concerned.

We may not like 'em but we still have to call 'em...well, except for that little corner of Connecticut of course.

When the timeout is actually granted is a gray area, which some of us would like to see specifically defined in the rules.

No more gray than the case play that tells us to call a double foul on a blarge. :D

True Confession:

First half. A gets trapped in FC (away from the bench). B puts hands on ball and I call "held ball" just as I hear Coach A yelling for a TO (she had kind of a soft voice). B has the arrow, so as I run past Coach A, she asks, "Didn't you hear me ask for the TO?"

I replied, "Not until after the held ball. I'm not saying you didn't ask earlier, only that I didnt' hear it earlier."

She seems satisfied.

Second half, loose ball on the floor in A's BC (again, away from the bench). A dives on the ball and as B approaches I *clearly* hear a female voice from the general direction of A's bench, "Time Out." I look to the bench and Coach A is looking directly at me. So, I blow the whistle and grant the TO.

Coach A says, "We didn't request a TO."

effme.

So, we had an inadvertant whistle and A keeps the ball.

Hey speak for the NFHS and NCAA - M only please. We on the NCAA - W side have that one already figured out!:p

That one is actually not gray. It is in direct conflict with definitions in the rule book. Pretty easy to figure out, I thought.

Agitator! :p

No it won't be helpful. No one cares what you have to say.

Were you serious when you said that? Or were you playing a friend

I think he meant, "No one at the captains' conference cares what you say at the captains' conference."

Got it...and agree with it. Hell, most of the time your partners aren't listening to you either.

And I'm not kidding when I say I take 10-15 seconds. At the end, I'll ask my partners if they have anything to add. It's rhetorical -- I really don't want them to add anything. Soon as that's over with, I spin on my heels and walk the 10 steps to the table to take care of my bidness there (which always starts with taking air out of the game ball that's *always* over-inflated and checking the possession arrow).

I hate it when my R is finishing his 1 minute conference saying "except on the endlines where it's orange :D " (which piques my interest) and follows with "do you have anything to add?" It always feels like grade school when the teacher asked me to read. I never knew where we were!

The answer to that question is always "no."

Exactly...

...when I'm not the R and asked if I have anything to add, I just say...

"Have Fun".

...OH NO!

I can see this statement pop in my silly little smart a$$ head tonight...

...I'll let you guys know how that one goes.:p

(BTW...chseagle will be at the table tonight...he really is, usually, right on top of things and a very conscious scorekeeper/timer)

Say hi to the Eagle from all of us and wish him and Lady chseagle a Merry Christmas for us too.

Agitator.

I would hate to have one that is unconscious.

True, but sometimes we settle for semi-conscious.

Thank you, JR...I will...and a very Merry Christmas to you and to all a good night.

Thanks JR! Merry Christmas to you too! :D RookieDude may not let me live down that weak throw of the ball to him at the start of the 3rd Quarter from the table. Blame the occupational hazard of tendonitis from repetitive foul entering while working Girls JV Scoreboard. The visiting team had at least 15 fouls each half. I should of had my hubby throw it to him. He worked scoreboard for Boys JV in the other gym. There's 2 times during Girls JV, that I wished the Visiting coach would of been seatbelted for being out of the coaches box & in front of the center of my table. I don't know if anyone saw him do it. There was a incident in both JV games where the visiting team had a player try to enter the game before a official motioned them in. I just am curious to the full clarification on Visiting Player's T during Varsity Boys tonight. Thanks for quizing us & keeping us on our feet, not to mention getting us to chuckle too, especially w/ the checking the air pressure in the ball thingy. Home Boys Assist. (C) Coach that almost got seatbelted, can be a little hot headed, but I know the ins and out of him & the head coach, as I was the Boys Manager my senior year (opted out of playing varsity my SR. yr. due to a XC injury {qualified for state} & wanted to try to make state track, which I did in the 3200m).... They had to run several extra miles because of me. If anyone couldn't beat my mile time, they had to run it again. :) They placed 4th at state that year. The assist. coach (JV) was assist. then too. Just to let you know my hubby quizzes me daily, as I hope to be a official next season (not him, me). :D

I forgot to wish you a Merry Christmas too again. :D

No such thing. My pre game is literally 10-15 seconds. The only exception is when I ask my partner if he has anything to add, and he gives the spiel about speaking captains, out of bounds, handchecks, etc.

"What's Your Number ???"
 

I hate it when that happens.

Letit Point Easy to Overlook
 

McBilly has a good point here. Often, especially if there's significant backcourt pressure and an impending held ball situation, the new lead -- not actually real close to the on-ball action, has a better awareness of the coach's request and can assess player control from a distance. Isn't it correct that sometimes it's a "line-of-sight" issue in which the other guy actually has a better vantage point? His head doesn't have to do the periscope thing to verify the necessary elements.

We hope you are one of us next year too. We need all of the help we can get get (:)), and us getting people that are obviously dedicated to the sport helps us even more.

Have a great Christmas!

Argh, the answer to that question is always, "No." Or, if I'm feeling verbose, "Nope."

For girls games, I sometimes remind them: "Nothing above the rim."

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.

I ask, and I have gone to the captains during the game.

Speaking Captains ??? Hearing Captains ??? Seeing Captains ???
 

I'll go to any of the captains, cocaptains, tricaptains, or quadcaptains, if I need help with something. I'll answer politely asked questions from anybody, even the twelfth kid on the end of the bench.

I can usually pick out the leaders on a team and go to them. Sometimes they're the captains, and sometimes they're not.

Someday, when I advance far enough to remember the numbers of the captains after the meeting is over, I'll think about asking the question.

Team Last Night Had Tricaptains ...
 

They had two speaking captains, but one couldn't see me, and the other couldn't hear me. Stoopid monkeys.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:i4XMlS94rorH4M:

Me too, and I circle their numbers in both books right after the meeting. That's part of my 10-15 second meeting, BTW.

Or "Don;t miss any shots!" :)

I do.

I also ask both of my partners at the end of the 1st quarter, "Who are the speaking captains?"

And I have no problem going to the captain and saying, "You need to talk to #23 before he costs your team a couple of FTs and the ball."

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

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 ...
 

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
 

No. It was a Festivus miracle. Giddyup!

For IAABO Officials Eyes Only ...
 

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.

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

Next ???
 

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?

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.