Well in our playoffs at the Super-Sectional Level a coach requested a timeout without one and the crew granted it. The only mistake the crew made was to not give the timeout. Otherwise the crew knew the coach/team was out and granted it anyway with less than a minute. What was funny the team that asked for a timeout that they did not have, hit a buzzer beater to send the game into overtime. The team eventually lost in overtime, but I think we cannot just ignore these request just because. You never know what the result might be.

Peace

This statement reads as one coming more from a fan rather than official.

Pray tell...how would an assignor defend you if a coach were to send tape in asking why the officials didn't grant the timeout? There's nothing ambiguous about the request...the player is signaling for a timeout for 2 seconds...right in front of the new lead.

Also, what is your cut off for how much time must be on the clock before you'd grant a timeout? Four seconds? Why that? Why would you be able to see a game "end that way" with a request at four seconds rather than two? Hell, why not just ignore all requests in a tied game in the closing 30 seconds? What if it's a bad game but tied? How do you determine what's a good game and thus not worthy of being "ended that way?"

Part of this gig is being able to make calls of consequence....in end of game situations...that will adversely affect a team. It's not really in the job description to stop players/coaches from making stupid mistakes.

*I say this all with the caveat that some assignors would probably want you to ignore this...therefore listen to your boss.

There's a number of officials on the FB Referees page that agree with Ducky. Really makes me sad.

Hmm, let's see, what happens when we assume? . . .

Saw that. I've talked to officials like that before. Fortunately, few of them are in charge of anything.

Worst of all is the guy who claimed if he saw it, he'd say he didn't see it.

Sometimes making the right, correct call takes a level of fortitude that many do not have. Simple as that.

And that is the bottom line here...because of idiots on chat boards and fan-boy pages and (sadly) referee forums who go ballistic about calls like this and the T on the dunk, we have officials who either 1) do not have the guts to take any heat that might come from making a tough call, or 2) think they know best what is "good for the game" and choose not to call things.

Both of which make the job all that much harder for those of us who are trying to do it right.

But it was such a good game.

And sometimes we have to realize there are bigger issues at stake rather than simply following the rules. From the very beginning when I started officiating to this season, working a varsity game with two older refs who told me to get on the same page as them(we did, in the second half and it ran smooth)
that you don't always go by the book. I was officiating closer to the letter of the rule while they were letting the players dilate play and calling fouls when they should. As they told me, ref according to the level of play. The game was between two good varsity teams that were well-coached and stricter officiating was not needed. There are fouls that need to be let go. There are times when you can have a play-on. There are hand-checks, and other touch fouls that could be called and often should be called, but the good refs are going to know when to pass on them if they are not impacting play.
It would have been a travesty had the game ended on a T with .8 seconds to go. Yes, it could have very well been the case had there been an extra second or two, but as ref I'm not going to end the game like that if the situation calls for it. Perhaps the players and the refs got lucky there wasn't more time on the clock, but I'm just very glad the game ended the way it did, and the fans and players got to be involved in a great championship game. That's the end story. Not the T issue or the timeout.

I'm glad you're here to be an example to others. Not a good example,, mind you....

Wow. Having a player request a TO when their team does not have any is what is the travesty. Your job is to enforce the rules. If you do not want to enforce them, then stop officiating until you can get the rules committee to edit the rule to your liking. It only makes it more difficult on the crew behind you when you choose which rules to enforce.

I see your point on this example on letting the players [dictate] play, but that is a completely different scenario than ignoring a TO request just because you know they do not have any TO's. One rule requires us to use judgement, while the other does not.

It almost does look like the new lead ignores the White player trying to call timeout. New L maintains his focus to the new back court the entire time. If he truly didn't see the player calling a timeout (that went initially from the paint area all the way out to the 3 point arc with time still running), I have no idea what else he may have been looking at.

Well, that might be part of your problem.


All the stuff you mentioned in that post, otherwise, is about judgement on contact and how tight or loose to call it based on advantage gained/lost. That is all good, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this case. It wasn't like he started to make the time out signal and stopped, realizing they didn't have any. He emphatically requested it and continued to request it. For it to not be called (if seen) is pathetic.

It may have been a travesty, but it wouldn't have been on any of the officials....it would be on the player making the boneheaded timeout request.

(dictate)
maybe we have dilated enough on this topic.:rolleyes:

I didn't know there are two definitions for dilate.

Bottom line is the clip CLEARLY shows the player calling timeout and although I don't know what was discussed at the end of game when they got together to talk, but can make an educated guess if it was about the timeout (you saw white's coach pleading his case that they tried to call timeout). . .

That's the everlasting problem with us as stripes - there are those who feel their philosophies and what they feel to be right take precedent over what the rules dictate and require us to do. . .