Crew Consistency

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

NO. Talk like an official, not a moron.

Ah, good see the real Nevada came back.

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 will also nit-pick one of the phrases you mentioned - I don't mention specific player numbers when trying to talk them out of possible violations. If a coach hears that, they are more likely to say, "Why are you telling 55 to get out of the lane? Why not just call the violation on 55?" If you remain vague, ("Keep moving", for example) the players might catch it, but the coach might not.

[referee99]

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

Ah, good see the real Nevada came back.

I'm not sure about Nevada's response. He did say NO to my question about whether I should consider changing... So I'm unharmed (so far)

Originally Posted by M&M Guy

I will also nit-pick one of the phrases you mentioned - I don't mention specific player numbers when trying to talk them out of possible violations. If a coach hears that, they are more likely to say, "Why are you telling 55 to get out of the lane? Why not just call the violation on 55?" If you remain vague, ("Keep moving", for example) the players might catch it, but the coach might not.

You know I just read something from someone else about not being player specific about warnings. To clarify, I'm talking to players early in game, letting them know I'm aware of them and what they are doing -- preventative officiating. But I am going to try to avoid the specific numbers going forward.