[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I do agree in principle that using the language and terms in the rule book is a great idea, and you can never be faulted for doing it the "right way". But remember our job is not only to adjudicate, but also communicate, whether it's by verbal or non-verbal methods. So if you occasionally use a common phrase that is more understood by the masses, on an extra signal that helps explain what really happened, I don't think that makes you a moron. (Just don't use the over-the-back phrase or "reach"; those grate on my nerves as well.)

I agree. Communication is at least as much about the other person. If you can say what needs saying in terms the other person already understands, communication becomes a lot easier.

Generally it is useful, and ultimately educational, to be able to explain a rule or call in the language of the rule book. But insisting on using rule book terms when there are already completely equivalent, commonly used terms...that's a big 180 on communication. End line versus baseline? Meh, whatever. Shots versus throws? What the hell is a throw? Please tell me you're not going to go find a way to use "try".

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Creates problems? Please.

I honestly think that those who are pedantic about these things either invent these "problems" or embellish them to enhance their position that these "rogue" phrases and mechanics are "dangerous."

Amen. Frankly I think the same is true for veterans who give advice like, "never use a number or color...because [fill in preferred proclamation of inevitable doom here]"