CA Open Championship (Boys)
 

Returning to the timeout issue I mentioned in the California state boys championship. I don't have video of the play. But from my recollection, Mater Dei missed a shot with about two seconds to go, ball was live, a Bishop player is calling for timeout. He doesn't have the ball. Clock runs out.
Again, in my opinion, the refs saw the TO request but ignored it. Or 2, they saw it but it didn't register in their mind to grant it. 3- They didn't see it.
Bishop O'Dowd did not have any timeouts left.
The game went into OT. It was a great game. It would not have been right to end the game on a T in that situation. If the refs had seen the player signal a TO, then I think they were 100% right to ignore it. It wasn't a controversial play and no one seemed to notice it. Perhaps the player and the refs were fortunate there wasn't more than a second or two on the clock because then I think the refs would have had to grant the TO request. Well-officiated game. A classic game to remember. In the Ohio game with the T on the dunk, that is a controversial call but you can't fault the ref for calling it. There was a showboat element to it. But here if a T is called it would not have been the right way to end the game.

Streak ends | state, monarchs, scored - Sports - OC Varsity

Here is one video I could find but not of the play in question. BTW, from here you can't really tell but on TV it appears there was a foul. There was a two minute delay or so to work out the time and which is why the first FT was airballed in my opinion. player was frozen at the line. Just added to the drama! btw, Mater Dei is an amazing team.

Mater Dei falls in OT to Bishop O'Dowd in Open Division title game - LA Times

If you want support for your opinion that officials should ignore a timeout request in this case, you'll have to go to a fan site. I'm sure they'll agree with you.

if you watched the game I think you'd have agreed with me.
Again, like I said, it was very quick from the TO request and the end of regulation. Maybe the refs didn't see it. IDK. But absolutely it was the right move to ignore the T if that was the case as it would have meant a Technical foul with maybe .5 seconds left or something.

It was a good game with a fitting end.

Jesus Christ mutant

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/wptes...2/facepalm.gif

Or maybe it had something to do Red #1 disconcerting the free thrower. IMO, that should have been called.

I saw that too. I think the rules committee really needs to look at that because I see it called so inconsistency and often ignored.
I often see a player raise his hands up really fast. Makes it seem like a rebounding issue but really it is to distract the FT shooter. I'd rather have it clearer and more examples on when to call it because it seems to be all over the place. The players really don't know either what crosses the line.

We had a discussion earlier about black and white, literal reading of the rules, etc. There is the correct call but there can also by the RIGHT call. The right call can mean passing on a foul that could have been called.
By rule could the refs have called a T? Yes, they could have. But if you had watched the game as I did(and Nevada too I think) you would realize it would have gone against the spirit of the game. It would not have been the right way to end the game. I think Nevada(note-I may be wrong) was more in favor of the literal interpretation, by myself and others, thought you don't always call the game by the book. There are times when you don't call hand-checks and minor fouls.

I'm stunned to see the linked article was written by a member of a legitimate media outlet. This excerpt you posted sounded like it was written by, at best, a high school student (if not a child), so I had to look.

But I guess that's in keeping with the writing style/officiating mindset of most of your posts.

For the record, I believe in calling the game by the rules as written. That is the right way to officiate.

did you watch that game Nevada? I missed the first half but saw the second. I saw most of the previous game, the St Mary's one.
Listen, this may be a moot issue. Maybe the refs didn't see it, or maybe they saw it and thought but the time they granted it time would have run-out.
I'm just saying I'm glad it wasn't called.
I'll post a video when I can. It was on tv here statewide.

I did not see the end of the game. Had some other things going on.
What surprised me about the girls Open contest was that the CIF assigned a crew from the St. Mary's section to officiate it.

in the St Mary's game I thought there were a couple of strange calls and if anything they seemed to favor Mater Dei but I thought the officiating was good.
I was so impressed with Mater Dei's star player. Sorry, I don't know her name. The guard, dark haired girl. Crazy skill.

oh here she is. ha. She is going to LMU.
Divine sisterhood at No. 1 Mater Del -espnW

Grant, And Then Charge ...
 

No. You're skipping a step. First, the official should have granted the timeout. There is no provision in the rulebook, casebook, or the mechanics manual, for an official to ignore a legal request for timeout out just because the official knows that the team has used their last timeout.

Second, after the official scorekeeper confirms that the team has used an excess timeout, the technical foul is charged, but only after the timeout is granted, and used.

You know, there was this college game a few years back where this guy named Chris Weber was playing with these other 4 really good players from Michigan, and wouldn't you know it, he tried to call a timeout thingy when they didn't have any timeout thingys left.

Good thing for him the refs just chose to ignore his request, cause it was just too good of a game to end with...wait. What? The refs did give him the timeout? And called a T??????

Why those dirty basturds. I bet they got run out of town and never worked another big college game in their...what??? They did???

Never mind.

I'm Gonna Get Legal On This Right Away ...
 

Hey. That's my schtick.

Note: Well done rockyroad.

This would be a really easy decision for me on the floor. Like I've said to others, this isn't football, where we're expected to ignore the request.

yes but there was 11 seconds to go in the C-Webb game. I said if there had been more time then then it would have likely been granted.
In this situation, it was off a miss, a player without the ball. And pretty much everyone else thinking the time had run out. Maybe one second to go.
My point is, if the refs had seen the TO request, the right thing to do was to ignore it and let the game be rather than a horrible ending which that would have been.

An ending made "horrible" due to a player's/coach's mental mistake.

BillyMac Out ...
 

some people just don't get it...

Please post the CIF Section in which you officiate so that they can be contacted and told that you are in need of additional training.

If you call it the first time it happens you won't have worry about where that threshold is the rest of the game. ;)

I don't need to see the game to know that the idea of an official ignoring a timeout request to avoid a technical foul is a horrible idea.

Simply stated..as officials, we get into trouble when we don't understand the rules or misapply them or blow them off. Many decisions that we make are necessary but unpopular..that is called courage and it is part of what makes a great official...:)

I would never grant a TO with one second to go in a highly contested game, one of the best in the nation, if it meant the game would end like that.
btw, those were three highly regarded refs. None of them called it (assuming they had seen it)

CIF Open Final Seconds (video)
 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WBHV_4SJ5-4?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This is an embarrassment.

What other rules do you selectively ignore?

If a kid travels on a game winning half court shot do you let it go so the game doesn't end like that?

White's bench sure thought they granted the time-out request lol

That said, there sounded like several whistles going off in the final second or two...maybe they were unsure if there was time on the clock when they granted the TO?

Guess only a handful of people really know the answers.


As an aside, lets say this "ignored" TO request happens with 7 seconds left instead of 1. And lets say that the defense sees the request and rightfully stops playing defense, because the other team is clearly calling time out. But, the officials choose to ignore the rule and the offensive team goes the length of the court to win.....is that a better result?

If the defense stops as soon as they think they hear a request, they deserve whatever happens to them.

there clearly is a whistle or two. When I saw it live, I thought a TO had been granted. I thought the refs were discussing whether or not to put time back on the clock to give O'Dowd the ball. I didn't know there weren't any timeouts left and The tv people didn't know and they talked about that after. Listen I know about ignoring the tech and the issues that could arise but trust me if you watched the game you did not want to see end that way. But yes clearly there could have been an issue had there been another second or two on the clock. It appears to me one of the refs see the TO request and blows the whistle but time has run out, or they just let the clock run. It seemed to have stopped at .8. I don't know. I'm just glad I saw a quality game between two very good teams.

you see how the clock is stopped at .8? I think that was the clock operator, then it restarts. ha, what a mess that would have been if that last heave had gone in.

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. . .

This horse is about dead, but I want to make sure the crew doesn't get stuck underneath the horse at it falls. There are a few things in the video that got brushed aside in the unfortunate path the thread took. First, to be clear: If a timeout was request prior to time expiring, the officials must absolutely enforce the rules.

I believe the new L recognized the request and was going to penalize the team appropriately. Watch his actions. He has his hand raised and is stopping the clock around the .4 mark. The C emphatically comes in waving off the shot, but he goes immediately to the new T. Watch the game clock from the endline view. It does in fact pause at .8.

I would venture to guess that during the discussion the C said he had information that the clock stopped inappropriately. The question then becomes whether or not the time out request occurred before time expired or after. Although video clearly shows that the request came before time expired, I do not think it unreasonable to believe the official did not see the request until very near the horn sounding. With the additional information - and definite knowledge - that the clock stopped at .8, I think they decided to rule that the request came after the expiration of time.

Video proves this to be wrong, but I don't think the crew deserves to be lumped into the camp that believes this request should be ignored. The clock operator threw a wrench into the situation. The C had excellent clock awareness; the T was probably too tunnel visioned, but I do think he eventually recognized the time out request and was going to respond in accordance to the rule. It was just the perfect storm that led to a miss. But the crew shouldn't be penalized for mutant's activist take on the rules.

I agree. And I never claimed they refs did what I would have done, which is ignore the TO, if I saw time was going to run out. There was a clock issue and the refs may or may not have noticed it and they may not have seen when the TO was requested and how much time was left.


Peace.

Cautionary tale

Was this the thread that should have gotten locked, and not the Ohio thread?

Perhaps.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The Ohio thread should have been cleaned up first, starting with the tangential discussion involving hbk314 and, surprisingly, several moderators. I wanted to comment on the OP but sadly I was too late. :(

In this situation I wouldn't necessarily ignore the timeout request, but I might be really slow to grant it. Oops, looks like time expired and we are going to overtime. My bad coach.