Crew Consistency

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Okay, I understand the sentiment here, especially with things like "reach" and "over the back," but I'm not sure how the terms noted above indicate a "moron." How are they detrimental terms?

I'm with you - I have no problem with "key", "baseline", "shots".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I'm with you - I have no problem with "key", "baseline", "shots".

I don't use "key" and "baseline," I just point and say, "white ball right there." I do, however, use "shots" when referring to free throws.

"Two shots, partner."

When administering, I'll say "Two shots," to the players.

Or, conversely, "One shot, let it hit."

[JRutledge]

If you can use the rulebook language, but we do have jargon that is acceptable and understood in our game. I would not worry about using that jargon as long as it is accurate and easily understood. I do not know anyone that would get upset (not in real life) if you said "Key" or "Baseline." If this is what you are really worried about or an assignor is worried about this, then you or they have too much to worry about. These terms are not the same as saying "over the back" or "moving screen" while calling fouls. This is a completely different set of circumstances if you ask me.

Peace

[dbking]

I learned at a recent camp from a very veteran official..

"White, keep moving"

It is a game management tool. Coach can not say you are favoring one team or to call the violation. It works just the same and causes no controversy.

Originally Posted by dbking

I learned at a recent camp from a very veteran official..

"White, keep moving"

It is a game management tool. Coach can not say you are favoring one team or to call the violation. It works just the same and causes no controversy.

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?

[JRutledge]

I have been taught several times to always use color and the place the ball will go (no exceptions). I guess this is a "When in Rome...." situation.

Peace

[referee99]

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?

will be going into practice at 5:30pm local time today.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I'm with you - I have no problem with "key", "baseline", "shots".

How about "on the floor?"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

How about "on the floor?"

I never use this one, but I hear "veteran" officials use it occasionally.

[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 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.).

[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]"