TO request when you have no timeouts

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by so cal lurker

What rule would that be?

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

[Rob1968]

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Pantherdreams]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Rob1968:

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



MTD, Sr.

So the coach doesn't know how many timeouts they have left or are uncertain. They know they have at least one because you haven't told him they have none. Your reccomendation is that he call a timeout and have the AC go find out now?

[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.