TO request when you have no timeouts

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

There are many actions taken by game officials which are not expressly dictated in the rules. And, many times, here on this forum, the statement has been used, "If it isn't illegal, it must be legal."

Just because it's not "illegal" to communicate with a coach regarding the number of time outs (other than using the last one) that he has remaining, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to do so. The statement, "Coach, you've got one timeout remaining", may seem innocuous, may foster good rapport with the coach, and is certainly legal, but if there's been any miscommunication, or error, between the official scorer, the visitor scorer, and the officials, why take a chance on communicating this possibly "tainted" information to the coach?

Under the worst case scenario, he takes another timeout that he thought he had (but due to miscommunication, or error, he really didn't have any left), you inform him that your charging a technical foul for an excess timeout, and we all know what he's going to say next, "But he (pointing to your partner) told me I had one timeout left" (Or worse, "But you told me I had one timeout left"). If the rule required us to inform a coach regarding how may timeouts (other than using the last one) he had remaining, then we would have to do it, but the rules don't require us to do this (other than using the last one), so why bother?

When a phone call between the official, and the assigner, occurs in the early morning, it's always nice to be able to include the statement, "I followed the rules", and informing a coach that he has a certain number of timeouts remaining certainly isn't illegal, but it's not following the rules either.

[JRutledge]

I am granting the timeout. I am not ignoring any obvious request no matter what. It is not my responsibility to know how many timeouts anyone has. Even if I think I know, I could be wrong about that at the moment. And a coach or player might be taking that risk knowing they will at least get a timeout. We spend too much time trying to do their job for them. If they do not know how many timeouts they have, like other things as it might relate to fouls or knowing other bookkeeping items, that is on them.

Peace

[rbruno]

Had a HS varsity game where the table told me one team had a time out remaining and I informed the bench. Later in the period they call the time out, I report to the table and the official book who had just told me they had one left tells me they have none. Technical foul and I am the bad guy. Like stated above... I don't care how many they have until they have none forever more. Then I check the book and inform. They can figure out themselves how many they have... that's what all those people sittin on the bench are for.
The NBA playoff game mentioned above is the famous triple OT game Boston/Phoenix. Also in that game Paul Silas a Celtics player requested at TO that they didn't have and Richie Powers the referee is seen ignoring the request that could have cost the Celtics the game. He is quoted as saying "I didn't want someone to lose a game like that."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

Why do you need to be aware when a team gets down to one?

So I'm not asking the coach which type of TO he wants.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

What rule would that be? There is a rule that they must tell coaches when they are out, but what rule prevents them from being involved otherwise?

By rule it's the ONLY time we should notify the coaches how many time-outs they have. What is the purpose of doing it any other time? We always say ACs need to know their role and place in the game, so why is it alright for us to intrude on their territory?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

The rule that says that officials should be notifying head coaches when their team has been granted its final allowable timeout.

Originally Posted by Rob1968

The simplicity of the verbiage used in 5-7-11 - "The officials shall conduct the game in accordance with the rules. This includes: . . . Notifying the head coach when a team is granted its final allowable time-out." - does not imply nor expressly preclude any other action, such as the courtesy of informing a team regarding the time-outs still available, at a point in the game before a team has used its last time-out.

There are many actions taken by game officials which are not expressly dictated in the rules. And, many times, here on this forum, the statement has been used, "If it isn't illegal, it must be legal." - or other similar phrases.

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Just because it's not "illegal" to communicate with a coach regarding the number of time outs (other than using the last one) that he has remaining, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to do so. The statement, "Coach, you've got one timeout remaining", may seem innocuous, may foster good rapport with the coach, and is certainly legal, but if there's been any miscommunication, or error, between the official scorer, the visitor scorer, and the officials, why take a chance on communicating this possibly "tainted" information to the coach?

Under the worst case scenario, he takes another timeout that he thought he had (but due to miscommunication, or error, he really didn't have any left), you inform him that your charging a technical foul for an excess timeout, and we all know what he's going to say next, "But he (pointing to your partner) told me I had one timeout left". If the rule required us to inform a coach regarding how may timeouts (other than using the last one) he had remaining, then we would have to do it, but the rules don't require us to do this (other than using the last one), so why bother?

When a phone call between the official, and the assigner, occurs in the early morning, it's always nice to be able to include the statement, "I followed the rules", and informing a coach that he has a certain number of timeouts remaining certainly isn't illegal, but it's not following the rules either.

Rob1968:

Billy is correct. Do not ever tell a HC how many TOs that his team has left unless it is to inform him that the Scorer has told you that his team only has zero TOs left.

If he really wants to know how many TOs his team has he can have an AC ascertain that information during a TO.

The last thing you want is to have the Scorer tell you a team as a TO remaining and then you, of your own volition, tell the team's HC that his team has a TO remaining when he does not because the Scorer gave you incorrect information.

MTD, Sr.

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by Adam

So I'm not asking the coach which type of TO he wants.

The guy who posted that said it was a brain fart and he meant when it gets down to zero not one.

And I said several times that it is useful to know if he has a 30 left. But that's different than knowing the overall number of TOs left, which many officials feel the need to do and communicate to coaches and partners for whatever reason.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

The guy who posted that said it was a brain fart and he meant when it gets down to zero not one.

And I said several times that it is useful to know if he has a 30 left. But that's different than knowing the overall number of TOs left, which many officials feel the need to do and communicate to coaches and partners for whatever reason.

I get that, and I've stopped one partner this year from telling the coach he had 2 left. I've also ignore the R in another game when he told me to inform a coach he had 1 left. Well, not ignored so much as just smiled and nodded.

I like to know who has what for game awareness. I never tell coaches unless they're down to zero.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Just because it's not "illegal" to communicate with a coach regarding the number of time outs (other than using the last one) that he has remaining, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to do so. The statement, "Coach, you've got one timeout remaining", may seem innocuous, may foster good rapport with the coach, and is certainly legal, but if there's been any miscommunication, or error, between the official scorer, the visitor scorer, and the officials, why take a chance on communicating this possibly "tainted" information to the coach?

Under the worst case scenario, he takes another timeout that he thought he had (but due to miscommunication, or error, he really didn't have any left), you inform him that your charging a technical foul for an excess timeout, and we all know what he's going to say next, "But he (pointing to your partner) told me I had one timeout left" (Or worse, "But you told me I had one timeout left"). If the rule required us to inform a coach regarding how may timeouts (other than using the last one) he had remaining, then we would have to do it, but the rules don't require us to do this (other than using the last one), so why bother?

When a phone call between the official, and the assigner, occurs in the early morning, it's always nice to be able to include the statement, "I followed the rules", and informing a coach that he has a certain number of timeouts remaining certainly isn't illegal, but it's not following the rules either.

Billy,
My point is that it is not breaking a rule, either. The rule I quoted doesn't say, "Do not inform the coach(es) of their remaining time-outs, until they have none left." I check with my table crew several times during each game, for various reasons. And when I ask them how many time-outs remain, I verify with both the official book and the opponents' book. It's a game management protocol, that keeps me and my crew out of trouble, keeps the table crew engaged, and avoids problems.
And, I always inform the coach(es) when they have no time-outs left.
Now, in my little corner of Rome, if a supervisor ever tells me to not inform the coach(es) except when they are out of TO's, I'll gladly comply.
To me, it's not unlike our local interpretation of the automatic fouls on a ballhandler, in which our supervisor/interpreter said to use a closely guarded situation as the guideline for the multiple touches foul calls - (rather than the "even when the second touch happens 80 feet after the first"); or talking to players to avoid having to call 3-seconds, or holding fouls, etc.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Billy,
My point is that it is not breaking a rule, either. The rule I quoted doesn't say, "Do not inform the coach(es) of their remaining time-outs, until they have none left." I check with my table crew several times during each game, for various reasons. And when I ask them how many time-outs remain, I verify with both the official book and the opponents' book. It's a game management protocol, that keeps me and my crew out of trouble, keeps the table crew engaged, and avoids problems.
And, I always inform the coach(es) when they have no time-outs left.
Now, in my little corner of Rome, if a supervisor ever tells me to not inform the coach(es) except when they are out of TO's, I'll gladly comply.
To me, it's not unlike our local interpretation of the automatic fouls on a ballhandler, in which our supervisor/interpreter said to use a closely guarded situation as the guideline for the multiple touches foul calls - (rather than the "even when the second touch happens 80 feet after the first"); or talking to players to avoid having to call 3-seconds, or holding fouls, etc.

Why do you feel it necessary to do the job that is already assigned to the assistant coaches? You telling coaches something they already know.

[Rob1968]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why do you feel it necessary to do the job that is already assigned to the assistant coaches? You telling coaches something they already know.

Actually, I don't think it's neccessary. I just find it interesting that on this subject the consensus of opinion is a strict attitude of only doing what the rule book says is required of us, but on so many other subjects we have long discussions about how one or another of us extends his/her actions in the name of "game management, preventive officiating, etc."
I'm fine with not informing the coach(es) of their remaining TO's, and strictly following the instruction to inform them when they have no TO's remaining. My point is more a query into the tradition of taking the rule to do so as a statement prohibiting any other communication with the coach(es) regarding their TO's, when the rule doesn't state what not to do.
In our area, year after year, the feedback from the coaches, lists their overwhelming concern, and complaint, about our officials as the perceived unwillingness to talk to them.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Actually, I don't think it's neccessary. I just find it interesting that on this subject the consensus of opinion is a strict attitude of only doing what the rule book says is required of us, but on so many other subjects we have long discussions about how one or another of us extends his/her actions in the name of "game management, preventive officiating, etc."
I'm fine with not informing the coach(es) of their remaining TO's, and strictly following the instruction to inform them when they have no TO's remaining. My point is more a query into the tradition of taking the rule to do so as a statement prohibiting any other communication with the coach(es) regarding their TO's, when the rule doesn't state what not to do.
In our area, year after year, the feedback from the coaches, lists their overwhelming concern, and complaint, about our officials as the perceived unwillingness to talk to them.

There is a big reason to only tell them when they're out.

If you tell them 1 and they really have none, they have a good reason to gripe when they take it, find out they have none, then get a T. If you're wrong when you tell them 0, then there really is no problem. It can be investigated and corrected with no consequence.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

There is a big reason to only tell them when they're out.

If you tell them 1 and they really have none, they have a good reason to gripe when they take it, find out they have none, then get a T. If you're wrong when you tell them 0, then there really is no problem. It can be investigated and corrected with no consequence.

There could still be a problem. (name ANYTHING we do that has no potential for a problem) If you say he has none when he really has one, then his player gets trapped and turns the ball over and the coach would have called a timeout, that could be (rightfully) perceived by the coach as a problem.

[JRutledge]

I do not even go out of my way to tell a coach he is out of timeouts. Most of the time I do not say anything honestly. The coaches already know most of the time anyway and the if the table decides to tell us, I might mention it if I am by their bench. Otherwise, coaches should know or their scorekeeper already tells them.

Peace

[Eastshire]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

By rule it's the ONLY time we should notify the coaches how many time-outs they have. What is the purpose of doing it any other time? We always say ACs need to know their role and place in the game, so why is it alright for us to intrude on their territory?

This is overstating it. By rule, there is one time we must inform the coach how many time-outs are left. The rules are silent as to whether we should or should not indicate the number remaining in other circumstances.

It's a bad idea but it's not against the rules.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not even go out of my way to tell a coach he is out of timeouts. Most of the time I do not say anything honestly. The coaches already know most of the time anyway and the if the table decides to tell us, I might mention it if I am by their bench. Otherwise, coaches should know or their scorekeeper already tells them.

Peace

You should as it's a required duty of an official.