Timeout! Timeout! Timeout!
 

Had this situation last night.

2 whistle mechanics.

I'm trail, and the ball is loose on the floor, right in the middle of the lane. Bodies on the floor, and Coach A is screaming TIMEOUT! TIMEOUT! TIMEOUT! Once I see that A1 has player control, I whistle from trail and grant the timeout.

Coach B asks if I was sure that A1 had control, and I was 100% sure that he did.

My partner seemed to have an issue with the fact that I granted the timeout in his primary. Though based on where A1 got control, I have my doubts about how much he could see since there were bodies everywhere.

First question: In a two whistle game, should I really not be looking in the lane for held ball/timeout/whatever else from trail in a scramble like that?

Second question: Are you less inclined to grant timeout when the coach is blindly screaming TIMEOUT TIMEOUT TIMEOUT like that, even though his guy eventually got player control?

OMGawwwd!! Is his primary not your secondary?

In your 1st question, does the action open up to your tableside L or does it open to the T opposite??
Just like the curl play (which occurs closest to the L) but we have been taught if the play curls away the L stays away...

Its a tough situation to be in when we grant unseen timeout requests! Use the pregame to learn his voice, when he's whinning for a foul remember what he sounds like & you wont need to see him request it.
If his player obtained p/c then coach should get his timeout! What did your partner want to do, call a held ball or even worse, a foul?

Why would you not be looking in the lane? Are players not there? Did other players from your primary not go to the lane? I am going to bet the most competitive match-ups were in the lane. I doubt that players were just standing around watching. So why would you not be looking in the lane?

I grant timeouts when I know there is possession. If I do not know there is possession, then I do not assume.

Peace

It's a PRIMARY coverage area, not an EXCLUSIVE coverage area.

I have no problem with a partner that calls something like that in "my" area. I don't see what good it does to be territorial.

Not only is this scenario one in which I would expect both officials to be looking into the lane, but granting timeouts are not situations in which only the official with the ball in his/her primary should make the call. If the coach requests a timeout, I'm glancing to make sure his team has PC, then granting it, regardless of where the ball is.

It doesn't do anyone any good except for someone's ego.

I have no idea about less inclined/more inclined. All I know is that if I have a coach requesting a time out when his player has possession, I'm blowing my whistle. If not, I'm not. It really is that simple.

+1 Niiiice!

You know I'm jacking that, right?

Precisely (but not exclusively :D).

When bodies are jumping on a lose ball in the lane, that becomes the trail's business. There is just too much that can happen there and it needs 2 sets of eyes. It's not like someone is going to set a screen away from the ball....and even if they do and do so illegally, it will not matter.

As for time out, that IS your job. You heard the coach request it, you must verify his team is allowed to have the timeout so you can grant it. You could just as well be an entire court away from the ball. Primary is 100% irrelevant to this situation.

+1. This is the correct way to think about a play like this. Not...

...it isn't about ego, it is about court coverage. I don't think it is too hard to theorize as to the importance of proper court coverage. With the proper theory and experience it should be perfectly clear why primary areas of coverage exist.

I would say that once properly trained, this discussion should never really take place. Additionally, someone who thinks like this and works 2-man shouldn't really care one way or another about ever working 3-man. After all, the reason for going to 3-man was improved court coverage. Why do you need 6 eyes watching the ball...4 should do fine.

License to ball watch...denied!

In my experience, officials who are "territorial" are very much about ego. It's THEIR area, so they don't want you coming into THEIR area, making THEIR calls. They don't want to look bad by having you come into their area and call something.

It should be just the opposite! I thank my partner, verbally, right across the court when they save the crew. In the lockerroon I offer to buy the beer.

I kept going over the situation in my head last night, trying to think why my partner would have a problem with it, and you guys have confirmed my thoughts. He shouldn't have had an issue with it. I had a great look at it, saw player control 100%, and made the call.

I will bring this up with my partner tonight (different guy) and make sure we're on the same page.

I also wasn't sure if there was a difference in 3 vs 2 man mechanics in that situation. My partner last night works a lot of varsity. Other than that play, he had a lot of great advice for me.

Agreed. Luckily, it seems to me that the further you get along, the less territorial officials seem to get.

Or they might not want the CREW to look bad by having you come in their area and call something WRONG.

In my career I have not come across officials who are territorial about calls and areas, exept for one in particular.

Other than that, the times other officials have talked to me about calls in their area they always discussed it with me as a "crew" dynamic, not a "my area" thing. Only have had one a-hole in my 10 year career.

I don't know what your experience level is, but if you're new I would be leery of accepting advice from a territorial guy.
Of course you would want to listen to everyone who offers, but then I would verify the recent camps he has attended & what level of ball he works. Many of these posers are sharing outdated info!

I am trying to understand your order of events here. Is this it?

Time-out requested
Delay
Player gains control after delay
Time-out granted.

Thanks for the heads up. I'm in my third year now with the state of Illinois with aspirations to get to the varsity level. The other advice he had for me was little stuff that made a lot of sense to me.

I had a similar, but slightly different situation last night. It's a situation that's happened to me before, but this time I didn't let it rattle me.

I'm T table side as the ball is on the wing on my side. A1 has the ball and gets trapped by two B players and starts to panic. I hear (who I think) is A's coach screaming for a time out. I glance quickly to make sure it's him and not someone in the stands. As I glance back at the play and blow my whistle, I see the ball is now loose and rolling around on the floor. I grant the timeout to A, and B's fans go nuts.

B's coach wants to know how Coach A can call a timeout while his team isn't control of the ball.

"She did have control when he requested it. Just because my whistle blows a split second later doesn't mean he didn't legally request the timeout."

He was disappointed but I think he understood.

Best case scenario, of course, would have been for my partner to see Coach A requesting the time out and grab it quickly, but I think he was blocked out by the B players position and couldn't see possession. So I had to glance.

Revisions in red/bold/italics

That may be true, but that is not what was asked. He was asking whether a person should go get something (specifically, verifying control for the purposes of a timeout) out of their primary.

Not what who asked? The OP? I wasn't speaking to the OP when I brought up the "ego" issue. I was responding to a post from bainsey, who said "I don't see what good it does to be territorial.

It helps to read the entire thread.

Well said. We have to check the validity of a request. If the ball pops loose afterwards, so be it.

For the sake of clarity, is this list completely sequential, or are the time-out requests continuing while the player has control? If the former, denied. If the latter, granted.

[QUOTE=bainsey;799744]It's a PRIMARY coverage area, not an EXCLUSIVE coverage area.

Outstanding way to address this issue!

I did, but I don't reread the entire thread with each new post. When your reply is intended to address a specific comment not part of the original question, it is advisable to be clear about that. These linear forums just aren't conducive to reading the minds of other posters.

Seriously? I did make it clear, by quoting bainsey. It wasn't like I just threw it out there randomly. Why are you looking to be a plumber today?

THere is a difference between granting a TO request and calling a held ball right in front of your partner. You do the first, not the second.