TO request when you have no timeouts

[zm1283]

It is custom here to inform one of a team's coaches when they are out of timeouts. I have partners who give teams running countdowns of timeouts left as they use them during the game, which gets old.

I also have discussed granting excessive timeouts with other officials. There are guys out there that think we should ignore requests for excessive timeouts.

[Knights_Coach]

I always thought refs granted the TO, then a tech ie Chris Webber Michigan. Growing up we were always taught, "don't call a TO if you are out, the ref 'will' give you a tech." It was never, he "might" give you a tech. I've been searching for this answer. Here goes the scenario:

During our overtime game. With seconds left in the game, it's tied 52-52, both teams were in the double bonus, the ball is dead, Team A(them) had the possession on the baseline trying to inbound ball & advance down the court. Team B(us) played full court press and almost got a 5 sec count, team A's inbounding player signaled timeout to the referee near him, who was right next to him. He never granted it, shook his head no. Team A inbounded it and it was tipped by Team B toward the half court line, Team A's possession there. I tried to ask the referee why didn't he get a tech because it was clear that he was requesting one. He then told me, he doesn't have to grant him one. All the while Team A drives to the hole and and gets fouled with 0.3 seconds left. Sinks 1, Team A commits a lane violation on the second. We didn't have any timeouts and w/ only 0.3 seconds we rolled the ball but didn't make the shot, end of ball game 52-53. We were the #8 seeded team vs the #1 seeded team.

NFHS 2014-15 Rule 5: Scoring and Timing Regulations, Section 11: Charged Time-Outs, Article 6 says: Time-outs in excess of the allotted number may be requested and shall be granted during regulation playing time or any extra period at the expense of a technical foul for each, as in 10-1-7.
PENALTY: (Section 1) Two free throws plus ball for division-line throw-in. (Art. 7) Penalized when discovered.

The Bible says thou "shall" not kill, adultery, steal, etc. Shall means "will" not "sometimes" or "at discretion."

[bob jenkins]

The referee was wrong on the TO.

And, if he was almost at 5 seconds and then the TO was requested and denied -- he was likely at 5 seconds before the ball was released.

[johnny d]

How old was the guy. I vaguely remember some stupid rule about not being able to request a timeout after the throw in count reached a certain number. This was way before my time and might not even have existed. Maybe the guy thought that was still a rule.

MTD can gives a history lesson if such a rule did exist

[so cal lurker]

Originally Posted by johnny d

How old was the guy. I vaguely remember some stupid rule about not being able to request a timeout after the throw in count reached a certain number. This was way before my time and might not even have existed. Maybe the guy thought that was still a rule.

MTD can gives a history lesson if such a rule did exist

After 80% of the count had expired. (I believe that was at the same time the 5 second count did not end until the ball was touched in bounds -- I don't know if both changed at the same time, but I believe both changed quite a long time ago.)

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by johnny d

How old was the guy. I vaguely remember some stupid rule about not being able to request a timeout after the throw in count reached a certain number. Maybe the guy thought that was still a rule.

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

After 80% of the count had expired.

Ah yes, Grasshopper, it was called a "Change of Status".

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by johnny d

How old was the guy. I vaguely remember some stupid rule about not being able to request a timeout after the throw in count reached a certain number. This was way before my time and might not even have existed. Maybe the guy thought that was still a rule.

MTD can gives a history lesson if such a rule did exist

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

After 80% of the count had expired. (I believe that was at the same time the 5 second count did not end until the ball was touched in bounds -- I don't know if both changed at the same time, but I believe both changed quite a long time ago.)

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Ah yes, Grasshopper, it was called a "Change of Status".

In the Ancient Days it was called and Imminent Change of Status and it applied to five and ten second counts. An Imminent Change of Status occured when 80% of the count had been reached. When and Imminent Change of Status had been reached a TO Request could not be granted.

I wouldn't call it a stupid rule but I guess (because I do not know the origin of the rule) that it was to award good defense, much like when the shot clock violation rule was changed from the FGA had to be released before the time limit had expired to the FGA had to be released before the time limit had expired such that the ball touched the basket ring.

MTD, Sr.

P.S. I am apologize for responding so late, but I had a S.O. basketball DH tonight.

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

In the Ancient Days it was called and Imminent Change of Status and it applied to five and ten second counts. An Imminent Change of Status occured when 80% of the count had been reached. When and Imminent Change of Status had been reached a TO Request could not be granted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it also apply to a player who was jumping towards OOB with the ball? A TO could not be granted to because of the imminent change of status in that situation either.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Altor

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't it also apply to a player who was jumping towards OOB with the ball? A TO could not be granted to because of the imminent change of status in that situation either.

Imminent Change of Status never applied to the above situation in red. But the NCAA Men's and Women's Committees adopted a rule about ten years ago that a TO Request could not be granted if a player in control of the ball was headed out-of-bounds. And the stupid reason for the rule change was because supposedly players had already landed out-of-bounds before making the TO Request. So instead of telling officials to do a better job of making out-of-bounds calls they adopted a rule that doesn't allow a team to burn a TO to keep possession of the ball.

MTD, Sr.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by AremRed

I roll my eyes inside when a partner goes to a table and tries really hard to signal to me how many of each timeout a team has. I don't care. Just tell me when he is down to zero so I can inform the coach. Maybe tell me when a team has only 30's or only full's but I really have more important things to be thinking about.

We communicate to each other when a team is out of a certain kind. Speeds up administration. Other than that, TMI.

[Knights_Coach]

Thank you gentlemen for your quick replies and answers. I wasn't arguing the 5 sec count because he definitely got it in before the count, it was that the player requested the TO well before the 5 sec were up. It was just a hard pill to swallow and what do you tell your athletes when we did everything right.

Because this was the 1st round of the tournament, we are out and now have to watch the team advance the next day only winning 22-24. Now, they're in the championship game when we, the #8 team, which was 1-11 in district compared to their 11-1 in district, have to play host. Again, thanks.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Knights_Coach

Thank you gentlemen for your quick replies and answers. I wasn't arguing the 5 sec count because he definitely got it in before the count, it was that the player requested the TO well before the 5 sec were up. It was just a hard pill to swallow and what do you tell your athletes when we did everything right.

Because this was the 1st round of the tournament, we are out and now have to watch the team advance the next day only winning 22-24. Now, they're in the championship game when we, the #8 team, which was 1-11 in district compared to their 11-1 in district, have to play host. Again, thanks.

As hard as it is to swallow that pill, you just tell your kids how great they played to almost beat the #1 seed. And it may not be what you want to hear, but that one call (or lack of a call) is not what lost you the game. There were many shots missed, turnovers made, and missed plays on defense that led to the outcome. That's what you'll remember but it's not what you should let your kids remember. IMO

[Knights_Coach]

Originally Posted by Smitty

As hard as it is to swallow that pill, you just tell your kids how great they played to almost beat the #1 seed. And it may not be what you want to hear, but that one call (or lack of a call) is not what lost you the game. There were many shots missed, turnovers made, and missed plays on defense that led to the outcome. That's what you'll remember but it's not what you should let your kids remember. IMO

Smitty and you know that's exactly what we told our boys. This lack of a call wasn't the only thing that cost us the game. I just got on this forum to get a little clarification and vent. We missed FTs, missed boxing out assignments, TOs, etc. We are not blaming the refs. Let's get that straight, refs are humans, too. But I was told by one ref. "It's OK to miss a call but not a RULE."

Again, thank you all.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Knights_Coach

But I was told by one ref. "It's OK to miss a call but not a RULE."

I am assuming based on your post in one of the other threads that you coach at the middle school level. Fortunately or unfortunately, that's the main training ground for most new officials. Like it or not, you'll often get officials who are new or relatively new and just don't know all the rules yet. Or they are just not applying the rules properly and are stuck at this level for a long time. It's just the way it is in the middle school world.

Nice job taking the #1 seed into OT. What a great learning experience for these kids, and maybe when they're in high school and they are in a similar situation, they will do what it takes to win regardless of a missed call or two.

[Knights_Coach]

Originally Posted by Smitty

I am assuming based on your post in one of the other threads that you coach at the middle school level. Fortunately or unfortunately, that's the main training ground for most new officials. Like it or not, you'll often get officials who are new or relatively new and just don't know all the rules yet. Or they are just not applying the rules properly and are stuck at this level for a long time. It's just the way it is in the middle school world.

Nice job taking the #1 seed into OT. What a great learning experience for these kids, and maybe when they're in high school and they are in a similar situation, they will do what it takes to win regardless of a missed call or two.

Yes, sir. I coach at the MS level. And I was told this morning by one of the Assistant Executive Directors, that yes, the MS level is where a lot of new refs go learn and get better. Again, I'm not here to bash. For the most part, I don't have a problem with them. It was the "non-call" but if it wasn't for that I would not known how to read the NFHS Rule Book. This situation has made me more aware of the rules whereas in the past I never looked them up. It has become my Bible haha.

One thing that kind of urks me is, I was told by several refs, that I can confide in, if I bring out the NFHS Rule Book during the game to show them or question a ref, expect to be tossed out of the game. So what good does it do me during a game? I've never seen somebody kicked out of court for bringing a Bible or The Constitution in court...get it court? Haha, thanks