Where's my English-Spanish rule book?
 

My son's team is playing in a tournament this week called "Tournament of Americas". Several teams from Latin and South America have joined the usual Atlanta area AAU suspects. Last night, while waiting for my son's game to start I watched two Spanish-speaking teams play each other. (Sorry, I couldn't determine the country from their uniforms.)

Toward the end of the game, which was closely contested throughout, A's coach requested, and was granted, a time-out. The table told the ref that the time-out was A's last, so the ref went over to the coach to let him know. It became immediately obvious that neither spoke anything but their native language. Ultimately, the ref told someone who looked to be an interpreter of sorts. So, of course, less than a game minute later, A's coach called another time-out. The refs then tried to explain that they were calling a technical on team A, which took a few minutes and a lot of confused gesturing and frustrated looks on everyone's part.

On a related note, the refs suffered further during my son's team's game. Early in the game they called lane violations on the opponent - a Venzuelan team - every time free throws were shot. I guess FIBA rules must allow entry into the lane after the release. Ultimately, because the game was a blow-out, they just gave up and quit calling the violation.

True.

As for the other, why not show the Team A coach the score sheet with all the timeouts crossed off?

Seeing how the official passed the buck about informing the coach that he had no timeouts left, I find it inappropriate to assess a technical foul.

I don't know. Seems to me this is the coach's responsibility to both know the rules and count his own timeouts. Case plays tell us to call the T even if the coach had previously been incorrectly told he has TOs remaining.

Why? Shouldn't the coach still know how many timeouts he's allotted and how many he's used?

Though there are case book plays that state this, I find it weird that we are to penalize a team due to a bookkeeping error...even if technically the coach should know how many TO's he used.

In FIBA, timeouts are handled in a very different manner. The coach, in addition to the language barrier, may have been uncertain of how timeouts worked here.

IIRC, FIBA timeouts go through the table and are only recognized during a stopped clock dead ball or when the team is due a throwin (not yet started???) after a made basket....and if they don't have one, the table just ignores the request.

Just found this document that covers this difference and others... http://www.fiba.com/asp_includes/dow...sp?file_id=518

I do, too, but the general point is the same as with the OP: coach should know how many he gets and how many he has used.

Not the official's fault. If you are going to play in a tournament not in your country, then you probably should know the rules of that tournament. Not saying you are suggesting otherwise, but this is not up to the officials to know what other rules a team "might" play under.

Peace

This may have been the biggest problem for the coach.

Taking a look at the rest of that file, it seems like it's pretty old. A lot of the information they have for the NBA and WNBA is outdated. Heck, it still states that FIBA has a trapezoid lane, and I believe they changed it to a rectangular lane with the NBA dimensions as well as added a restricted area the past year.

Still it's always interesting to see the differences between FIBA and North American codes and see their take on the game.

This brings up an interesting question about timeouts.....

Why do we penalize for an excessive timeout?

Sure, in the case of a live ball or with the clock running, it can provide an advantage that shouldn't be allowed. But, what about when the ball is dead and the clock is stopped. What harm or unfair advantage is there for a coach to ask for a timeout and have it denied (or let them have it if they still want it at the expense of a T)? It seems that the penalty is actually too harsh in such cases.

Thats where selective hearing comes into play.

Went to a college staff camp this off-season. There was a play where there was a time-out request at about the same time the ball got tied up but T-O request definitely came first. The supervisor questioned the officials about the play and was none too happy when one of the officials said he ignored the T-O request b/c he knew that team was out of time-outs.

Went to a college staff camp this past weekend where a guy granted an excessive t/o & whacked the coach, knowing the coach was out.
The clinician asked if the coach had been told he was out? No.
Then he asked if the table had told any of the crew? No
He then said be smart about those situations...

Different strokes 4 different folks.

Camron's post that you quoted made no mention of failing to properly inform the coach that he was out of T-O's so you are adding a bunch of kool-aid to water.

And notice, I said SUPERVISOR and you said CLINICIAN. Supervisor specifically mentioned that in a real game he would have tape sent to him the next day showing the official ignored the time-out request.

It makes water taste better! Why do I envision a pic being posted soon? Hey Kool-Aid!!

I understand the difference in positions... the official could've simply said he didn't "hear" the request. I dont see how a tape can validate an officials hearing or lack there of :confused:

In camp settings its better to say 'I didn't see/hear it" instead of "I passed because."

Hmmm. There are integrity issues at play here. Thin ice, at the least.

Just like saving a foul or putting a foul on the defender with the least amount of fouls when more than one is at the scene of the crime. Whats viewed as good game management by some can be viewed as integrity issues by others.

Know who you're working for as well as their isms & expectations!

It is quite different to choose which foul or infraction to penalize when you have a choice vs. making something up or doing nothing when it is clear that something occurred that should be penalized.

Now, back to my question....when the ball is dead and the clock is not running, exactly what unfair advantage is the current rule penalizing when an excess timeout is requested. Assume that the request is unambiguous and is not complicated by other factors.....i.e., you've just finished reporting a foul and the coach both visually and verbally makes the timeout request where everyone in the gym can see it. You start to report the timeout and the table informs you that the team has no timeouts remaining. Why not change the rule to just resume play unless the coach wants the timeout in exchange for a T. A T for that seems like overkill.

However, if the ball is live or the clock is running, the whistle that comes in response to the request changes the game. It stops the clock or it gets the team out of a precarious situation. That can certainly be an advantage.

I'm not really talking about the action in itself (ignoring the TO request or giving the foul to one defender over another). I'm talking about lying about why.

I've been "instructed" by senior officials down here to throw a bone to the losing team in blow outs. Close OOB calls, borderline fouls, borderline travels, thrower stepping over the line following a made basket. But I wouldn't claim to have not seen them. If anything, "You're right, coach, I missed it." Most coaches here expect it, though. As long as you're not letting the game get too physical, they're ok with it.

Knowing full well you heard it yet telling an evaluator you didn't hear it, however, is something I couldn't do. It would be better, IMO, and more honest, to simply say you'd been instructed previously to ignore it in those situations.

And I would only give a defender a foul if he actually made contact. If B5 has 4 fouls and B1 has none, I'm not giving it to B1 unless he actually made contact.

This play was in the last 20 seconds of the game and happened right in front of the bench of the coach who was requesting the time-out. The time-out request was visible enough for the supervisor ask about it so it would have been visible on tape.