T or No?
 

Team A is down by 6 with less than a minute to play. A1 hits a long jumper in transition. Her left foot is on the three point line when she shoots. As soon as the ball goes in, Coach A calls timeout.

I make sure the table knows it was a two point shot. The Coach hears me telling the table this, and asks, was that a three? I say no coach, her foot was on the line. He then yells across to what I'm assuming was his team's fans. "Was that a three?", as if he didn't believe me.

Would you T the coach for "showing you up"?

For the record, he'd been whining about foul counts and over the back all night. I'd had enough of his BS. I held off on the T, thinking it was borderline at best. Would you hit him with the T in that situation?

Nope, I would not. I don't care about coaches saying things like "3 seconds" "over the back" "Insert incorrect rule assumption here".

That is not something I would address at that point of the game....T or otherwise.

Nope, not from me either.......
 

Even though your ABS Meter appears to be going off, I think it was good to pass here too.

Not for that; but most likely I would have whacked him sometime back in the first half. When we say a coach has been "whining all night" then it's our fault for not taking care of it earlier don't you think?

Nope.

Good point by grunewar - ignore your ABS meter as justification to call the T. Does the fact that he was "whining all night" mean that you could have dealt with the BS earlier?

No.

It just means that the coach has not yet put enough straws on the camel's back.

If you whacked this coach in the first half, you'd post "the coach complained about 3 seconds so I whacked him; he had been complaining the entire first quarter" and someone here would say, "you should have whacked him in hte first quarter." etc.

My point being, if the coach had been dealt with earlier, then his 3 point "antic" near the end of the game probably never would have happened. But if we choose to allow the whining to go on all game to the point that "we've had enough of his BS" then we've left the door open for this kind of nonsense.

I agree with the idea that if you've allowed it to continue to this point, calling a T here is probably not the best option.

OTOH, if he had been a peach all game, started whining with 2 minutes in the 4th (not uncommon), and you had already warned him immediately prior to this scenario, it might be warranted.

Stiffler:

I do not care if he had or had not been whinning all game long (and if he had you probably should have taken business by now already) but:

WHACK!!

He did this to show you up.

MTD, Sr.

I would not whack him but I would have some words with him in a one-way conversation and I would not have minced any words with him.

At first I thought this was the little game on the "Highly Questionable Show" called "Si or no."

My bad. :D

Honestly this is a HTBT situation. I can imagine this going on with not a lot of loudness and I can imagine the coach going off. For me it would depend on how loud the coach was and what had they done previously. If it was not a T, then it certainly would be something I would probably address before or after that timeout was over. Experience is what will tell you how bad this situation is and how it should be addressed. And honestly only you will know what a line is crossed, because your line is not everyone else's line.

Peace

I'm with JRut. Only from being there can you understand the context as to whether the question was indeed inciting the crowd.

Well...what was the reply?

From me?

"No coach, her foot was on the line"

From the crowd?

Someone said something, but I couldn't make it out.

I'm still not sure exactly what happened here. If the coach was looking elsewhere, and honestly didn't see what the call was, I have no problem with answering his question "Was that a three?" with a simple shake of the head, if it's convenient as I pass. If I know that he did see the signal, and then asks, I wouldn't acknowledge the question.

The problem wasn't with him asking the question. I don't doubt that his attention was elsewhere when I signaled two as the shot was in flight.

The problem was with him asking the crowd across the gym if it was a three, AFTER I had answered his question.

Also not worthy of your attention, in my opinion.

Apparently, you didn't pay attention to that part of the story.

Really? Why?

You don't point two fingers at the floor when a jump shooter steps on the three point line as he releases the shot?

That is a very common mechanic when the shot is rather close. I would rather you do that than not do anything and only have the table complain later that they did not know and cause more confusion. Some officials feel we should not do this and they have a point, but if the table is totally clueless (which they often are) this tells everyone what you have. Again, only on really close shots is this even necessary.

Peace

Welcome To The Land Of Steady Habits ...
 

I don't? We don't? Who says? It's an "approved" mechanic here in IAABO Connecticut, the entire state, not just in my little corner.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5274/5...b354c999_m.jpg

But that pic has one finger, not two!!!! ;)

I don't point to the floor or signal anything until after the ball goes in the basket, then I will hold up two fingers to the table so they know.

And the official is looking down at the floor, while the shooter is getting fouled. ;)

I always point to the line if the shooter is either on the line or is within a foot or so of it.

If you point when the shot is take, it will show up on tape -- that's when the decision needs to be made, and it will show you made it.

A) I would not "Whack" him based on your description. He was being a putz, but I wouldn't consider this "showing you up"....at least in this case.

B) I don't like to give a signal for something that doesn't happen. If I signal a "three"...so it is. If I don't signal, it was 2 pt shot.

I'm guessing you don't use the "not closely guarded" signal then? There are some that advocated not using the signal because "a lack of a count means I'm not counting."

I think the pros of using the signal far outweigh not using it but of course that comes with the caveat of "when in Rome" and that your mileage may vary.

I don't for the same reasons given...why signal something that's not happening???....BUT...I have no problem with anyone who uses these signals...They're just not for me. I can't say I've never caught myself a time or two using them, though... :cool:

Well at least you can say you're consistent...:p :D

Touche.

+1 I tell the table, no matter how obvious they thought it was, look for the signal. "If he shoots from the backcourt and you don't see the signal, put 2 on the board. If it's wrong, let it be on us, not you."

Likewise.

I still don't know whether it's an approved mechanic here in the northeast corner, but I've seen it done plenty of times to make me believe it's accepted.

Why show 2 fingers to signal a 2 pointer? If your hands are NOT up ITS NOT a 3. I point to the ground on close to the line shots in my primary so my partner KNOWS I got a look at is (same thing for coaches and anyone else who cares to notice) but mainly for my partner.

Good question. The answer is CLARITY.

How many times have we looked at a 19-ish foot shot and wondered, was that a two or a three? The two fingers at the table -- with a second of eye contact -- drives home the point, "I saw it. It was a two." It removes a lot of doubt from the table and benches.

Side question: How many of you haven't bothered to get the three fingers up on a ridiculously wild shot (from 20-21 feet, not a halfcourt), only to have it bank in? I've been caught twice, including last week. Both arms sure went up quickly!

APG'er:

With apologies to the late J. Dallas Shirley, I have never (both in college games and H.S. games) used the "not closely guarded signal" for the reason you give: If I am not showing a visible five second count it means I do not have a CGS.

There have been several times both in college game and H.S. games when a HC has questioned me about a CGS and they get this look: :confused:, when I tell them my reasoning for not giving the "not closely guarded signal". I just love the look on their faces: :confused:.

MTD, Sr.

That's fine, but the benefits of using the not closely guarded signal outweigh the benefits of not using it IMO...

With one signal, I can stop a coach begging for a count because he's perceived me not to be paying attention...one signal tells the coach that I'm paying attention to the criteria needed and that it's not being met. In addition it shows up on tape. Plus if you're in a situation where you have a count in your partner's area (count started in your primary), it's a more visible signal for a partner that you've given up the count and that he can pick up the match up.

To me, provided signals are given in a professional manner and provided it's used at the correct time, it can't hurt to give more information when useful and needed. Of course, this all assumes it's not in conflict with "when in Rome."

As others have said, it conveys that a decision was made

Exactly. They often do not watch us anyway if we signal a 3 point shot and this tells everyone I saw it if they happen to see us during a close possible 3 point shot. If we do nothing they assume we are incompetent and were not looking at the play.

I only give the "not closely guarded signal" when players are standing around. I do not give it when it is obvious that a player is further away than 6 feet.

Peace

I agree, no need to use it when it's obvious...that's just going to tire one's arms out. :D

No sir, I don't. I raise 3 fingers when he shoots from behind the line.

"Not closely guarded" is an approved signal.

No, I did not use it before it was approved.

I just look at the scoreboard to see if they added 2 or 3.

Ignore it... Based on your description, in my opinion he was not showing you up. "Coach the shooter's foot was on the line." Is all you need to say then get out of there.