Timeout! Timeout! Timeout!

[stiffler3492]

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?

[tref]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

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.

OMGawwwd!! Is his primary not your secondary?

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

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?

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?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

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?

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?

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

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?

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

Peace

[bainsey]

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.

[jdw3018]

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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by stiffler3492

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?

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.

[tref]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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

+1 Niiiice!

You know I'm jacking that, right?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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.

Precisely (but not exclusively ).

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.

[tomegun]

Originally Posted by jdw3018

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.

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

Originally Posted by fiasco

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

...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!

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by tomegun

...it isn't about ego, it is about court coverage.

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.

[tref]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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.

[stiffler3492]

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.

[fiasco]

Originally Posted by tref

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.

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

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by fiasco

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.

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.