Vid Request- Miami vs Duke

[VaTerp]

Originally Posted by BlueDevilRef

I'll agree with those first three but what is wrong with dipped his shoulder or moving his feet? Need some context as to when you hear them used and what you would say instead.

"Dipped his shoulder" implies that doing so is illegal. Its not. The displacement that can occur when an offensive player dips his shoulder is what we are calling. I hear too many refs simply saying, "he dipped his shoulder" to explain a call when there was no displacement and nothing illegal.

And I also hear officials explaining block calls by saying that the defender was still "moving his feet", which as we all know a defender is allowed to do to maintain LGP. Agree that context is important here but IMO we should get out of the habit of using these phrases at all because they perpetuate myths and unttuths about what is actually legal vs illegal.

Originally Posted by deecee

.
On the floor is the only acceptable phrase we can use. It conveys information that the foul was not in the act of shooting and that the foul was "on the floor" not "at the rim".

I know of a few college and HS assingers who don't want that phrase used at all so to say that its "the only acceptable phrase we can use" is not at all accurate.

A foul does not have to be "at the rim" to be a shooting foul. All we have to say, if anything, is "no shot" or "before the shot." And when explaining to a coach you just indicate that the foul occured before the shooting motion began.

As Bob said its a phrase that, again, perpeutates myth. Just like "over the back."