[BFritz]

A coach being able to call timeout is completely bootleg. A high school game is won by the players and is about teaching them to play the game, so this rule does the opposite.

Case in point: Tonight CovCath was pressing late in the game and had Lafayette's player trapped backcourt and the 10 second count was probly on 8 or 9, and they let the coach call a timeout, and the coach happened to be on the opposite end on the opposite side of the court.

If you're going to allow the coach to call timeout, there should be rules (i.e. he can't call timeout when a player's trapped and/or after five seconds of the 10 count or two seconds of the 5 second count).

Am I wrong?

[BlackcatAlum]

Lets say that CovCath was the one with the ball and there coach called a timeout, would you still have started this thread?

Not trying to get under your skin or anything but I think your being alittle bias.

But take it for what its worth, because I wasn't there, if I was I may have agreed with you.

[The Guru]

Am I wrong?

I do not often disagree with you......

But yeah.....you're wrong.

[vundy33]

Yeah your wrong...lol and way biased. You wouldn't have started this thread if it would've been CovCath with the ball.

[IBleedRed]

Wow. This has to be a joke. Thats what makes the game interesting. This shouldve never been started.

[BFritz]

Ok, all of you have said I'm wrong, but no one has offered even one explanation as to why they believe I'm wrong, NOT ONE.

[elkcity2224]

At every level of pretty much every sport the coach can call timeout. The players are playing te game but the coaches name is always tied to the loss and this is just a tool so that the coach can help his team try to win the game.

[RavenBoy]

It is what it is

[FBALL]

If the coach calls the timeout does that not teach the players what to do in that same situation the next time?

[alfus21]

[Choogler]

Wrong...wrong...wrong... Here is why. Coaches are there for a reason. They survey the court and change team plans accordingly.

[vundy33]

LOL Boone should have to tell you why your wrong...its just how the game goes. Like I said before, if the rule was the that a coach couldn't call time and your team was in the place that Lafayette was then this thread would be about why there should be a rule.

[BasketBallonlyfan]

Cant the same thing be said if you are having trouble getting the ball in bounds? Why shouldnt coaches be allowed to call time outs? You said for someone to give a reason why it is right for them to be allowed to do it, what reasons do you have to show why it is wrong?

[BFritz]

Carre to offer more than just laughing? I'm sure that it's directed at me but you offer no explanation.

Wrong...wrong...wrong... Here is why. Coaches are there for a reason. They survey the court and change team plans accordingly.

They survery the court and make plans accordingly, but they don't execute the plans: that's the players' job.

You just proved my point.

Cant the same thing be said if you are having trouble getting the ball in bounds? Why shouldnt coaches be allowed to call time outs? You said for someone to give a reason why it is right for them to be allowed to do it, what reasons do you have to show why it is wrong?

Because coaches role to the team is to teach the players what do to do- not to do it themselves.

Because a coach is on the sidelines, there's only FIVE players allowed on the court to have an impact on the play in the game.

If the coach calls the timeout does that not teach the players what to do in that same situation the next time?

No, it teaches them that the coach will bail them out again next time. It shows that they don't need to worry about calling timeout.

[Junk Yard Dog]

IMO, A coaches job is to evaluate EVERYTHING happening on the court during the course of a game and then try to manipulate it to their teams advantage. That may mean to change defenses, making a substitution, slowing the ball down etc...... IMO, calling timeouts is part of that manipulation!

Lets say for the sake of argument a team comes from 15 down to tie the score, should it be left up to the players, who just blew the big lead, to call time out or the coach? If so why didn't they call it sooner before the game was tied? Again, lets say the game is tied with 6 sec.'s to go and you steal the ball. Should the players call time out or the coach?

IMO, Calling timeouts is part of coaching, & not part of playing. These are just a few senarios, there are many more. I think the overwhelming majority of people see why the coach is allowed to call timeout. Anyway, hope I helped.

[FBALL]

No, it teaches them that the coach will bail them out again next time. It shows that they don't need to worry about calling timeout.

Only if the players are braindead. Which in I think I know some in which that is the case. Most people learn from experience. It is a coaches job to teach and get the team into the best situation. This scenario is an example of both.

[UKCAT5FAN]

Part of the coach's job is strategy. Calling a timeout is exactly that, strategy.

[BFritz]

Part of the coach's job is strategy. Calling a timeout is exactly that, strategy.

In some situations, yes, a timeout is strategy, but strategy is pre-planning or a move that is pre-determined, in which case making a strategy for a PLAYER to call timeout in a certain situation is good coaching, but allowing the coach to do it isn't strategy, it's saying "ok, if you get into trouble, I'll bail you out," which teaches them absolutely nothing.

Besides for that, it's bringing the coach directly into play, making him more than a coach, making him a player because he has a tangible impact on the game, which is not what a coach is designed to do.

[Ring'Em Up]

In some situations, yes, a timeout is strategy, but strategy is pre-planning or a move that is pre-determined, in which case making a strategy for a PLAYER to call timeout in a certain situation is good coaching, but allowing the coach to do it isn't strategy, it's saying "ok, if you get into trouble, I'll bail you out," which teaches them absolutely nothing.

Besides for that, it's bringing the coach directly into play, making him more than a coach, making him a player because he has a tangible impact on the game, which is not what a coach is designed to do.

If a coach is not expected to have a tangible impact on the game, why is he fired when he is the one held responsible for having a tangible impact on a team's losing record?

Yeah, I agree, especially at the H.S. level, a coach is to be teaching the game, helping improve his players. But I believe teaching them how to win is part of it as well.
Since you disagree with coach calling a TO, what is your take on the PG looking over to the coach every trip down the floor to see what offensive set to run that sequence? You think it should be left up to the player to analyze the D and decide on his own, or ya think its ok for the coach to make this call? Whether it be every trip or the final crucial possession, since you were really focusing on certain instances when ya really disagreed with it?

[vundy33]

Carre to offer more than just laughing? I'm sure that it's directed at me but you offer no explanation.


They survery the court and make plans accordingly, but they don't execute the plans: that's the players' job.

You just proved my point.



Because coaches role to the team is to teach the players what do to do- not to do it themselves.

Because a coach is on the sidelines, there's only FIVE players allowed on the court to have an impact on the play in the game.



No, it teaches them that the coach will bail them out again next time. It shows that they don't need to worry about calling timeout.

Your crazy...that is so biased. Stop being stubborn and just admit your wrong.

[BFritz]

If a coach is not expected to have a tangible impact on the game, why is he fired when he is the one held responsible for having a tangible impact on a team's losing record?

Yeah, I agree, especially at the H.S. level, a coach is to be teaching the game, helping improve his players. But I believe teaching them how to win is part of it as well.
Since you disagree with coach calling a TO, what is your take on the PG looking over to the coach every trip down the floor to see what offensive set to run that sequence? You think it should be left up to the player to analyze the D and decide on his own, or ya think its ok for the coach to make this call? Whether it be every trip or the final crucial possession, since you were really focusing on certain instances when ya really disagreed with it?

He's fired when a team has a losing record because he fails to prepare his players or teach them properly.

If a PG looks over and the coach tells him what play to run, then it's fine because he's coaching, instructing the player on what to do, the coach is not helping to execute the play at all, which is what he's doing when he calls a timeout- being a player by controlling part of the game on the floor.

Your crazy...that is so biased. Stop being stubborn and just admit your wrong.

1. this is a site for debate (figured that was obvious, guess not) 2. how is it biased? It's a rule debate, not a school debate. The person who brought this up at the game was actually rooting for the other team 3. I'd stop being stubborn if you'd present solid arguments instead of just saying "you're wrong because 12 (or so) people on here say you're wrong, we don't need reasons or logic, you're just wrong."

Why teach the players to play the game or react in certain situations if you're just going to make it so they don't need to do it because a coach will do it?

[vundy33]

It's just a rule...its been like that for a while. If your not being biased then why havnt you brought this up before because we all know that it has been a factor in alot of games besides this one.

[Ring'Em Up]

Fritz, So you dont consider the coach controlling the game on the floor when he tells his players to run-and-gun balls out the entire game, or slow it down and milk the clock as long as possible each possession?
The compromise ya had about the "after 5 secs of a 10 count/2 of a 5 count" makes for good discussion, but is way too complicated for me. Cant imagine having to make a SPLIT SECOND decision on whether to grant him the TO or not based on how far along I am on a count, especially on a 5. It's hard enuff to distinguish between a coach calling for a TO and some fool in the crowd mumbling his distaste for me. And to think...my eyes are much worse than my ears.:yikes:

[Lion Crazy]

I wish he would just give it up on this rule, everyone in here has told him hes wrong, leave it at that, and move on.

[BFritz]

Fritz, So you dont consider the coach controlling the game on the floor when he tells his players to run-and-gun balls out the entire game, or slow it down and milk the clock as long as possible each possession?
The compromise ya had about the "after 5 secs of a 10 count/2 of a 5 count" makes for good discussion, but is way too complicated for me. Cant imagine having to make a SPLIT SECOND decision on whether to grant him the TO or not based on how far along I am on a count, especially on a 5. It's hard enuff to distinguish between a coach calling for a TO and some fool in the crowd mumbling his distaste for me. And to think...my eyes are much worse than my ears.:yikes:

Have you ever noticed a ref while a player is bringing the ball up the floor? He's counting, wouldn't be too hard to remember after you get to five that a coach can't call timeout. It's not like it's a bunch of different second rules- just when you get to 2 or 5 the coach can't call timeout, and the refs should be focused on the play on the floor anyways.

Milking the clock and stuff- good point, you're proving my point: coach can teach his players to do that or tell them to do it, but he can't walk out on the floor and direct them when to pass it and where to go.

[blackcat_mvp6]

yeah, your definatley wrong on this one.

[vundy33]

Have you ever noticed a ref while a player is bringing the ball up the floor? He's counting, wouldn't be too hard to remember after you get to five that a coach can't call timeout. It's not like it's a bunch of different second rules- just when you get to 2 or 5 the coach can't call timeout, and the refs should be focused on the play on the floor anyways.

Milking the clock and stuff- good point, you're proving my point: coach can teach his players to do that or tell them to do it, but he can't walk out on the floor and direct them when to pass it and where to go.

I thought you were smart...but now I'm starting to think I was wrong. You keep looking more unintelligent as this thread goes on and on.

[Ring'Em Up]

Have you ever noticed a ref while a player is bringing the ball up the floor? He's counting,wouldn't be too hard to remember after you get to five that a coach can't call timeout. It's not like it's a bunch of different second rules- just when you get to 2 or 5 the coach can't call timeout, and the refs should be focused on the play on the floor anyways.

Milking the clock and stuff- good point, you're proving my point: coach can teach his players to do that or tell them to do it, but he can't walk out on the floor and direct them when to pass it and where to go.

Counting?...Maybe I should try that this week... Shoot, I might even take a whistle and wear some stripes.
I had a whole mess of examples here of situations where we grant TO's, but its really not worth all the trouble. I takin the high road on the rest of this thread. Dont think I could ever convince ya of my points...(see next line)
As far as proving your point, it looks like you're in the mindset that anyone that posts anything on this topic is proving your point in some way or the other.
Good topic, tho, I guess. :confused:

[BFritz]

OK, tell me this, what does a coach do? He coaches his players to play the game, right? If he's allowed to have an effect on what's happening in the game, he's not coaching his players to do anything, right? And don't say wrong, if he's calling a timeout, he's not coaching his players on what to do in a situation or instructing them to play the game, HE'S DOING IT FOR THEM. Coaches COACH players, they don't play the game themselves; there's only FIVE players allowed on the court to have an effect on the game, except in this situation.

[vundy33]

OK, tell me this, what does a coach do? He coaches his players to play the game, right? If he's allowed to have an effect on what's happening in the game, he's not coaching his players to do anything, right? And don't say wrong, if he's calling a timeout, he's not coaching his players on what to do in a situation or instructing them to play the game, HE'S DOING IT FOR THEM. Coaches COACH players, they don't play the game themselves; there's only FIVE players allowed on the court to have an effect on the game, except in this situation.

**** man you are as hard-headed as it gets...should the coach even be aloud to be in the game if you think that he should not play ANY part in the game?