Crew Consistency

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How about "on the floor?"

I don't get all worked up about it, actually. Most officials I work with that use it actually call things the right way, so it means nothing to me.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't get all worked up about it, actually. Most officials I work with that use it actually call things the right way, so it means nothing to me.

It creates problems in the next game when an official calls a foul while the shooter is on the ground but has started the throwing motion. This is no different than calling over the back instead of a push.

In the end the call may be right either way but it communicates the wrong information.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I don't get all worked up about it, actually. Most officials I work with that use it actually call things the right way, so it means nothing to me.

And most officials do not get worked up over the language. Of course it is wrong to use, but as you said it really does not mean that much to people who are focused on their job.

Peace

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by LDUB

It creates problems in the next game when an official calls a foul while the shooter is on the ground but has started the throwing motion. This is no different than calling over the back instead of a push.

In the end the call may be right either way but it communicates the wrong information.

Do you really think coaches are paying that close attention? Do you think coaches do not already buy into the myth? They did not come up with the idea that the shooting motion "on the floor" came directly from an official. You cannot constantly worry about what others do and say. If you do, you will always be fighting that battle. Do not get conned by coaches because they told you other officials do the same. Not everyone is at your knowledge or experience level. You cannot expect 100% uniformity in anything, unless you are the military or something.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by LDUB

It creates problems in the next game when an official calls a foul while the shooter is on the ground but has started the throwing motion. This is no different than calling over the back instead of a push.

In the end the call may be right either way but it communicates the wrong information.

Creates problems? Please.

Haven't had a problem. Matter of fact, I'm the guy who makes sure that if a motion has started, even just a millisecond earlier, that we're shooting. I may get a question, sure, but it's not cause some random guy says "on the floor."

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."

Feh. I'm way more concerned about those with perfect mechanics who don't understand what is or isn't a foul (or a travel, etc.).

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How about "on the floor?"

I do not use that one.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I do not use that one.

Me either. I'm pretty vocal on the court, but doesn't waving off the basket communicate enough without adding some phrase to it?

I may two-handed-point to the floor, though, after waving off any attempt.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Creates problems? Please.

Haven't had a problem. Matter of fact, I'm the guy who makes sure that if a motion has started, even just a millisecond earlier, that we're shooting. I may get a question, sure, but it's not cause some random guy says "on the floor."

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."

Feh. I'm way more concerned about those with perfect mechanics who don't understand what is or isn't a foul (or a travel, etc.).

Agreed. The only thing I will add is I try to use proper mechanics as much as possible, but that is for my communication. I personally do not care that much what others do. I learned a while ago to leave those issues alone.

Peace

[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]"

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

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]"

Who said not to use number or color?

Peace

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by Ch1town

Strange, I too learned at a recent camp from a very veteran official...

Use no colors or numbers.

Reasoning:
On one end you (L) say "white keep moving" or "55 out the lane" & on the other end your partner (L) hits them with a 3 second violation. Now who's coaching who? I'm sure the coach is wondering why the crew helped on one end but not the other. Especially if this scenario happens in the first half, know what I mean?

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Who said not to use number or color?

Peace

An unnamed "very veteran official".

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Who said not to use number or color?

Don't know if this applies: We've been told not to state the number of the violator in a three second violation, because the scorekeeper might confuse it with a foul and mark it down. I've seen a few junior varsity officials do this, and have reminded them that it's not in the mechanics manual.

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

An unnamed "very veteran official".

I know I'm responding kinda late - it's been a busy weekend with weather, family coming over, (family finally leaving...), etc.

I don't know if I'm the "unnamed very veteran official" mentioned in the indictment, (sorry, but I've been reading too much about our "esteemed governor"), but I do know I'm in the camp of not being specific when trying to talk players out of violations during play. I know I've been told many times, in many different situations (camps, games, etc.) to not use color or numbers when talking directly to players during play. I have also had a coach tell me directly, "If you have to tell 54 to get out of the lane, why is it not a violation?" So to avoid having to answer questions like that, I think it's better to be a little vague in those instances: "Keep moving", "Hands off", etc. But in all other situations, by all means use color and number.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

"If you have to tell 54 to get out of the lane, why is it not a violation?"

They can ask this kind of crap all they want. I couldn't possibly care. Most I'll say is, "You'll get the same down at this end."

Fifteen years ago I would've gone down to the other end and called the first 3-second violation I saw and then blew kisses to the coach, but I'm kinder and gentler now. (And I'm kidding.)

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I have also had a coach tell me directly, "If you have to tell 54 to get out of the lane, why is it not a violation?"

Originally Posted by RichMSN

They can ask this kind of crap all they want. I couldn't possibly care. Most I'll say is, "You'll get the same down at this end."

So you've made that statement to coach & when the opportunity comes up, your partner(s) who doesn't have the same like-mindedness towards officiating, calls the violation... now what?