TO request when you have no timeouts
 

I was discussing this situation with a fellow official; Team A is out of timeouts, and I know this. If A1 requests a timeout do I A) ignore it since I know they don't have any, or B) grant it, and immediately T them?

You grant it and assess the T....they're allowed to call a TO, the price of that is just a T in this case.

And the T is administered after the time-out.

I've heard several officials say they would ignore it. That's pure baloney. The coach is requesting a TO, and as long as he can legally make the request we grant it to him.

Remember the famous Chris Webber TO?

I've seen teams deliberately do this a couple of times. For example, if a team scores to pull within 1 with fewer than 5 seconds left -- othewise (if the other team is smart) the clock will simply run out.

There was a famous game 30 years ago in the NBA where a team (Phoenix) was down 1 with 1 second left when the other team scored. They called a TO because of NBA rules that advance the ball to half court on a TO -- and tied the game after the opponent made the one FT from the T. (That game led to an NBA rule change that the ball did not advance on an excess TO.)

This situation involves a player but you can say the same thing applies.

For me, it depends on the situation. If it's a half hearted attempt to call a timeout I may ignore the first request but if its repeated and/or adamant then you really have no choice but to grant it.

At least under current rules, advancing the ball wouldn't be an option cause an excessive TO results in a T and the ball to the non offending team.

Interesting -- I'd missed that change. So the NBA creates a turnover for an excessive TO, but not for an unsporting T.

Also, just to be clear. In the NBA they advance the ball to the 28 foot mark not half court.

This is why I've never worried too much about the number of timeouts left for each team (other than perhaps knowing if they have any left so we know to call a T if they request timeout). Coach/player on the court requests it, we grant it. How they "pay" for it (either with an available TO or a T) is not what I'm thinking about at the time they request it.

They don't want a team being able to benefit, even at the expense of giving up a potential point...for their lack of proper timeout management.

And VaTerp is also correct...a team advances the ball to the 28 foot mark...not halfcourt...a 19 foot difference! ;)

so if you grant them a TO, is it a 30 or full?

I've never had this, I've just thought it would have been a semi-TO, by that I mean the coach calls his plays over while things are sorted out with the FT shooting.

By rule we are to notify the HC when the team has used its final allowable timeout but otherwise I agree.

I work games with people that during timeouts or other deal ball situations say, "Team A has 2 fulls and a 30 and B has blah blah blah...."

I say thats nice but I only care when they have zero. It is helpful to know when both 30s have been used so you can automatically award a full but otherwise I only want to know when they are done.

Since the rule says they shall be granted at the expense of the T, it would seem to me that they get whichever type of TO they called. It doesn't say they only get a 30.

I suspect that folks do that as a habit to make sure they are in fact aware when the team gets down to one.

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

The team is granted a full TO. The excess TO rule predates the 30-second TO; and team is only allowed two 30-second TO per game. Remember, when a game goes into OT each team has one full TO added to its total of remaining TOs. Also, if a team is granted an excess TO during regulation, it still receives a full TO in OT.

MTD, Sr.

Becase I had a brain freeze :( . . . reallly meant when a team got down to zero.

Gotcha.

But the info is of no use to me until a team gets to zero so I see no value in keeping track. As I stated its useful to know they only have one kind of TO left so I don't need the ask the HC which one he wants. But I don't care if they have anything other than zero and don't remember when people tell me the number anyway.

Plus I've seen scorers communicating incorrect info in terms of the number of TOs and then had officials communicate that same inaccurate info to coaches. One could say that you want to know in case there is a dispute between the bench and the book. But that is why I ask scorers before the game to indicate the time in the quarter when the TO was granted. And that's why coaches have assistants so they can keep track of their TOs and confirm with the official scorer.

I see absolutely no upside in knowing or providing the number of timeouts a team has until they have zero at which point we are, by rule, to inform the HC.

Correct, by rule, we are to inform the HC but if one of these brain-farts happens and we do NOT inform them, do you still penalize excessive TOs business as usual? Taking your lumps later?

What say you?

Of course we do.

Ignoring/forgetting/kicking one rule (not notifying a coach after his last TO) does not give us permission to willfully ignore another rule (T for an excessive timeout).

Don't compound one mistake with another mistake.

I agree with this, if there is a deadball, and I'm right next to the coach and he asks for a timeout, obvlivious to the fact that he's out, and I know he has zero? I'm at least going to say, "You know you're, out, right?" or something to that effect.

Soon To Be A Major Motion Picture ...
 

Things Officials Should Probably Not Be Saying In A Game

"Coach, you have one timeout left", is a courtesy often extended by officials to coaches, when, by rule, officials should only be notifying head coaches when their team has been granted its final allowable timeout. If there is any miscommunication, or mistake, involving the table crew reporting remaining timeouts, then the officials, by rule, need to stay out of the conversation. Let the coaches, and table crew, communicate about remaining timeouts, other than when a team has been granted its final allowable timeout, which by rule, is required to be reported to the coach by the officials.

I know how many of each teams have left. When they only have one kind left it saves a step.

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?

Just because I haven't seen it posted yet, by rule 5-11-6, we shall grant requested time outs even if in excess of the allotted number of time outs (assuming the situation allows for the granting of a timeout, i.e. not in possession, prior to the replacement of a disqualified player, etc).

I was trained that it isn't our place to prevent the mistake of requesting a time out in excess of the allotted number beyond the specified duty of notifying the head coach when a team is granted its final time out. I was trained that because the rule doesn't specify which team's head coach is to be notified that both head coaches should be notified when a team uses its final time out. (2-7-11: Notifying the head coach when a team is granted its final allowable time-out".

To SCL's question, there isn't a rule that prohibits an official from communicating this information other than the rule of KISS. I don't want to be the guy that mistakenly tells a coach he has X number of time outs remaining only to find out that it was actually X-1 and have him go nuts when he finds out the correct information, especially if it were to be at the expense of a technical foul.

For the record, my procedure when one team uses its final time out is to notify the coach that is out of time outs then notify the other coach that the opposing team is out of time outs. I do not provide any information concerning number of time outs for the team that didn't just use its final time out. That is for the coach and table to track.

Yes. Rarely have I told a coach he was out and didn't know. It's up to him to track that.

None Left Coach ...
 

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.

If It Isn't Illegal, Doesn't Automatically Make It A Good Idea ...
 

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.

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

Time outs
 

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."

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.


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

It is required for the scorekeeper to inform the coach through us. It is not required for us to ever find out what the timeout situation is for their team. This is not football, we do not keep track of that situation ourselves.

This is clearly stated in Rule 2-11-6.

It is not our duty, it is the scorer's duty. If they do not tell us anything, I do not ask. And I repeat, they already know. Now if they ask me while I am near their huddle (which is very rare) I will find out for them to be sure, but not something I do on my own. And it has worked that way all these years, I do not see any reason to do anything different. I want to stay away from benches as much as possible.

Peace

I'm sorry, you're wrong. It is our duty. 2-7-11 "Notifying the head coach when a team is granted its final allowable time-out." is an officials' general duty.

Yes, they already know (or should anyways). That doesn't relieve us of our duty to inform them.

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? ;)

Then how are you going to know? Do you keep track with a pad in your pocket? Do you go buy the scoreboard if that information is on the scoreboard (like the possession arrow)?

This is not about being right, how are you going to even know what their timeout situation is in the first place?

If you want to go spending your time at the table, be my guest. I am not doing that and I think I am OK doing what I have been doing. No one cares about this but guys like you. Never had a single supervisor care and even had people suggest we have to be careful with what we tell coaches as if that information is wrong, who do you think they are going to claim told them the wrong information if we are constantly telling them stuff?

Peace

I know because when I report the timeout the scorer holds up a fist to let me know the team is now out. When the scorer does that, I relay it to the coach after the time-out, because that's what we're supposed to do. It doesn't involve spending any time at the table, guessing, or keeping track of the time-out situation.

We're not constantly telling the coaches stuff. At most, you tell a coach once per game he's out of time-outs.

I'm continually amazed at the amount of things we're required to do by rule that you can't be bothered with.

Overstated what? The rule tells us the only time we are required to. Where did I say the rules forbid anything else?

Why do officials feel the need to interject themselves into that portion of the game needlessly? Let the AC's do their job.

Right here:

It gives the one time we must notify. You are incorrectly extending it to only time we should notify. Those are different.

I don't know. I agree we shouldn't but that's different from saying the rules give instruction on the issue.

You and I obviously do not comprehend the English language the same way.

You are confusing the words "should" and "may."

First of all I do not work for you or with you, so what I might do might be different where you work. Most of what we are talking about is customs from the place you live and work. Just like the rules state (I will look this up for the exact location) of what we do with timing mistakes. I believe only the Referee can correct such mistakes, but in practice no one I have ever seen puts that on the Referee alone. Maybe in your area this is something that would be a big deal, where I work they want the mistake corrected. And again, what I am doing must be working just fine. Never had anyone care if we tell the coach but usually some rookie that read the rulebook for the first time and then wants to be stringent on these things when they will soon realize that everyone already knows. No coach cares if we tell them and and if we give a T, they should have known better. Life it too short to worry about these things. If feel you have to, then so be it. Rules also say we must wear a shirt with black and white stripes, and I see guys all over the country wearing grey and other colors that do not fit that rule either. And in two situations over the season or Christmas Tournaments I wore a different color shirt for two different tournaments (one Purple and the other Red). Life went on where we were. So keep up the good work with that rulebook. Hope that helps you in these situations get it right. ;)

Peace

The Scorekeeper Keeps Track Of Timeouts ...
 

The scorekeeper informs you, and then you inform the head coach. It's easy peasy lemon squeezy.

It's in the rulebook, so we shall do it.

2-11 The scorer shall: Record the time-out information charged to each team (who and
when) and notify a team and its coach, through an official, whenever that team is
granted its final allotted charged time-out.

2-7-11: 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.

Again, a lot of things are in the rulebook, it does not mean that everything done is adjudicated the exact same. And when we all wear the same striped shirt, then we can worry about what is in the rulebook to that detail.

Peace

When coaches ask me,"hey ref how many timeouts I got left?"
Even when I know the number, I always say "coach, please verify with the Table Personnel."
I do this because I'm not the secretary, I'm the arbiter of the contest. Even if I know the number of timeouts, I remove myself from culpability if they are given "bad" information. I have enough to worry about in applying the rules of play while the action of the contest is occuring. I not a secretary.

I like knowing how many of each a team has left so I don't look like a fool when I ask the coach what they want. It looks much sharper when they request a timeout and you know they only have 30s left to signal that right away.

To whose who say they would ignore an excessive TO request- stop. You're doing the game a disservice. Unless you're working FIBA. Then we ignore excessive TO requests.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.)

Misty Water Color Memories ...
 

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

You can bring the Constitution to Court…but don't pull it out to tell the Judge he doesn't know what's in it…unless you have a few hours to kill...

At the middle school level I would toss a coach that rolled the rule book out.

Maybe at the Varsity level I would only give 1 T, and then if he kept going on I would issue #2 (maybe I would toss, I don't know what I would honestly do). But coaches know better than to act that way at the V level.

It's no different then during most games I go up in the rafters and tear down the "sportsmanship" banner that a lot of schools have on how fans, players and coaches are expected to act. Then I would wrap him in it and pull the end really fast so the coach becomes a top spinning all the way to the locker room.

But I digress, errors by officials are magnified way more than errors by players or coaches. If you break a game down I am pretty sure officials err way less than either players or coaches, and absolutely less than if you combine those 2 groups.

Who's saying that I or anyone is saying the ref didn't know what he was saying? I know they know more than I do as far as the rules go. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't but it would have been just for clarification purposes just like how I confided and some other refs after my game. I just want a better understanding. This is not a hot dog swinging contest. In my example, it was tied w/ seconds left. The other team had 0 TOs but still called TO, it wasn't granted. The tech would have allowed us to hit or miss our FTs but we would have gotten the ball. Let the game end in the teams' hands not at the hands of the refs.

No one is saying coaches & players don't make mistakes. We've made plenty. Refs are trying their hardest. I know I couldn't do it. Not yet anyway. Missing FTs, not boxing out, horrible Defense, etc. The refs didn't lose the game for us. We should have executed better. Again, I'm only here to get clarification, not bash. I have friends that are refs.

Don't think you are here to bash but the fact remains, the only T if you busted the rule book out at that spot would have been on you. In the end the lack of knowledge or skill on an official's part applies to both teams equally. It may just appear that you got the short end of the stick, but the size of the stick is relative.

He should have called it. I would have called it, most of us here would have called it.

In Missouri you can "Show Me"
 

1. Protest Procedure (MSHSAA Board Policy): The Board of Directors adopted the following policy, March 1997,
to address protests. The Board acknowledges that mistakes are made by officials in judgment and even
sometimes in misapplication of game rules. However, the decisions rendered by officials at the contest site are
to be final and any further process other than the one outlined below would not truly serve a useful purpose in
the overall scope of high school athletics.
a. Within the procedures established within each individual sport rule code, the head coach must request a
review of an official’s application of a rule through appropriate channels.
b. If, after the review is complete, the coach still believes there has been a misapplication of a rule by a contest
official(s), the coach shall then file a formal verbal protest with the game officials who will then notify the
opposing coach immediately of the protest. A coach shall not protest a decision of judgment.
c. Following this notification of protest, the head coach shall be allowed approximately ten minutes to use
his/her National Federation Rules Book, National Federation Case Book, MSHSAA Rules Meeting
Announcements and/or MSHSAA Sport Manual to locate and show the game official(s) the appropriate rule
reference which clarifies a misapplication of the game rule. If the head coach does not have personal
copies of the above mentioned materials at the game site or the specific rule reference(s) or case book
play(s) cannot be located within the maximum allowable ten minutes, the protest shall automatically be
disallowed and the game shall continue from the point of interruption. If a rule reference(s) or case book
play(s) is found that indicates a misapplication of a rule has occurred, the official’s decision shall be
corrected at that time before any further action occurs, and the contest shall be resumed from the point of
interruption after the correction as provided in the contest rules. When appropriate, the game officials may
assist the head coach in locating appropriate rule and case book references.
d. All protests shall be resolved at the contest site before any further game action occurs.
e. Protests that are not filed in a timely manner by that sport rule code shall be automatically disallowed.
f. The MSHSAA Board of Directors and/or staff shall not review contest protests.
2. Application of Protest Procedure
a. Introduction: Protests rarely occur and the new protest procedure policy is not intended to increase the
frequency of protests. It is however, intended to resolve the protest on site. For this to occur the following
must take place:
i. Coaches and officials must be professional with each other. This should be a non-confrontational
conference.
ii. As stated above, protests involve application of rules only – not judgment calls. (Examples of items
which could be protested: Football – penalizing 5 yards instead of 15 yards; Wrestling – allowing one
minute for injury time instead of two minutes; Softball – allowing only two charged defensive
conferences instead of three.) (Examples of items which could not be protested: Football – pass
interference; Wrestling – stalling; Softball – out or safe calls.)
iii. Get It Right! If the official has made a mistake – admit it, correct it and move on.
Contest officials and the head coach filing the official protest shall notify the MSHSAA Office in writing of any
contest in which an official protest has occurred and the resolution of that protest. The MSHSAA Special Report
Forms shall be used for this purpose.
b. Process
i. Once a head coach has filed a formal verbal protest with the game officials, they shall then notify the
opposing head coach of the protest and the playing field, court, mat, etc. shall be cleared of all
participants and they shall report to their respective team bench areas.
ii. The head coach shall then be allowed approximately ten minutes to locate specific rule references from
the NFHS Rules Book, NFHS Case Book, MSHSAA Rules Meeting Announcements and/or MSHSAA
Sport Manual to substantiate the claim that a misapplication of a game rule has occurred. The game
officials shall also confer among themselves during the period to address the claim of the coach as to
the potential rule misapplication.
iii. If the head coach is able to produce rule evidence from the above mentioned sources to support the
claim of a misapplication of a game rule, the officials shall correct the error as provided in the contest
rules and the contest shall proceed from the point of interruption. If the head coach cannot produce the
evidence, the protest shall be disallowed and the contest shall continue from the point of interruption.
The previously mentioned materials must be immediately available for review at the playing field
sideline, courtside, mat side, etc. (Time shall not be provided to go to a locker room, team bus, coach’s
office, etc.)
3. Once the final decision regarding the protest has been rendered, the game officials shall provide the participants
sufficient opp

The moment you pull it out on the court to show an official, YOU are saying exactly that.

Are we still talking about the rule book? :p

Yep, and to be specific, you're trying to influence the official's call.

I think this is important to remember in any sport at any level. An imperfection on the part of an official might make during a game is as likely to help one team as it is to hurt them. Officiating is like weather (in outdoor sports) or the condition of the playing surface -- it's a random element in the game that the participants can't control. We as officials work hard to make that element as consistent and as fair as possible, but that will certainly vary with the skill and experience of the official.

Longhorn, you only used a fraction of my post, which makes your post inaccurate and unfair. My full post read:

Who's saying that I or anyone is saying the ref didn't know what he was saying? I know they know more than I do as far as the rules go. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't but it would have been just for clarification purposes just like how I confided and some other refs after my game. I just want a better understanding. This is not a hot dog swinging contest. In my example, it was tied w/ seconds left. The other team had 0 TOs but still called TO, it wasn't granted. The tech would have allowed us to hit or miss our FTs but we would have gotten the ball. Let the game end in the teams' hands not at the hands of the refs.

I like what Missouri does. I'm not saying their protest procedure is perfect. I'm doing my research and I called them and left a voice mail. Again, no one is trying to undermine the ref but sometimes like in my case it's too late. The team we lost to in OT by 1, won it all last night by 3.

UPDATE: This is an e-mail I received that was sent to ALL the refs in my district. I just happen to be friends w/ some and they shared it w/ me. I left out the e-mail address & name for obvious reasons.

On Jan 29, 2015 4:26 PM,
A coach or a player can call time-outs in excess of the
allotted number. It may be requested and shall be
granted at the expense of a technical foul, even if
you have told both teams that they were out of
time-outs.

Rule 5 Section 11 Art. 6.

Thanks
B*****

Pretty sure he was referring to this comment you made, which is fully relevant. You're becoming less sympathetic with every post. The official made a mistake because he probably set aside a rule, which he shouldn't have. I'm sure he was educated, based on the email you posted. You made your point. You had a rough season as indicated by your record. You almost pulled a big upset at the end. Take away the positives and not the negatives. Maybe it's time to let it go and move on...

It's all about the kids. Little Johnny, Billy, Charlie, and The Fonz get the short end of the stick every time. The humanity, the inhumane treatment of the youth, the, the....you get it.

It's for the kids.:rolleyes:

Smitty, you're right. Time to let it go. Time heals all wounds. I think I was the one looking for sympathy. I'd just like to say thanks to everyone, again for the great conversation.

Deecee, you're absolutely right. It's for the kids. If no one is there to fight for them. Who will? We licked our wounds and we are already planning for the next season.

I've learned so much about the game and myself. And I have A WHOLE LOT more to learn about the game. Gentlemen, if I've offended any I do apologize. So long and have a great weekend.

I guess you missed his sarcasm.

I hate the phrase, "I'm fighting for my players". Never have known what it means beyond, "I didn't like the last couple calls against our team".

Ding ding ding.

Or the announcers excusing a ranting, raving lunatic of a coach with "He's just standing up for his players."

I hate the phrase "It's for the kids" as much as anything.

I despise anyone telling me that there's a right and wrong reason for officiating. My reasons are my reasons.

I get physically nauseous when I see it.

Maybe i'm just hungry.

I gotcha. I've ruffled a few feathers & pinched a few nerves. I'm dealing w/ a fraternity of brothers that I don't have any part of.

I apologize. I never stated why you all do it or said there's a right or wrong way of reffing. When I said "fight for the kids." I was referring to the point that for the most part the kids can only talk to the ref about so much. They don't know how to talk to refs. I always tell the kids, you play and let me talk to the refs. Yes, I may not have liked a call but I'm not going to use that phrase as a cop out.

If this has already been mentioned I overlooked it, forgive me. In case you didn't know, with .3 seconds left, if you roll the ball on the floor, you completely eliminate the already miniscule chance to score that you might have had, since you can only score on a tip at this point.