Crew Consistency
 

I have been making a concerted effort to use the correct terminology and language from the rules book.

This leads to communication during games such as:

"White ball endline!"

"Blue ball at the division line"

"55 get out of the lane"

"Two throws!"

etc.

Most if not all partners that I have use "key", "baseline", "shots", etc.
This is a common language amongst players, fans, coaches and officials.
I understand that.

My question is should I consider changing my language to match partners in an effort to ensure crew consistency?

NO. Talk like an official, not a moron.

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?

Ah, good see the real Nevada came back. :D

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.

I hear ya...
 

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)
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.

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."

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

55 out of the lane
 

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?

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

i can dig it.
 

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

How about "on the floor?"

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

I use words like "baseline" and "2 shots" all the time...and if there is one aspect of my officiating that I'm all receiving kudos for it's communicating with my partners....so I'll probably continue to use those moronic terms. :cool:

There is a big difference between saying "Blue ball at half court" and reporting an "over the back" at the scorer's table. But that's just my humble opinion.

But there is nothing wrong with you using the correct terminology. There is no reason for you to change that.

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.

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

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

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.).

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. :D

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

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".
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

An unnamed "very veteran official".

"But I've Only Got Four Fouls" ...
 

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.

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.

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.)

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?

At half time, after I've cleaned the Firestone marks off my uniform, I'll ***** slap my partner repeatedly until we are on the same page. It's really not that hard. ;)

In regard to the "hands off" statement to players, I use this too, but I try to say it before they start actively defending their match up. You can usually tell when a player gets into defensive position and the hands start to come up that the player is going to attempt putting a hand(s) on the player.

While I agree to a point, the coach does have a legitimate question. Being vague has less of a chance of being questioned.

Once upon a time, I had a coach asking for 3-seconds in the first half on a couple of possesions by the other team. Sure enough, I call one against his team soon after. As I end up in front of him, I said, "Thanks for alerting me to the possibility of that call."

I'm kinder and gentler now as well. :D

Exactly. The moment we stop refereeing the game for the kids, because we become afraid that the other coach will hear us doing it, that is the moment to hang up the whistle and walk away.

Now, when a coach asks me to stop talking to HIS players and just call the violation or foul, that I will oblige. I've had that happen a couple of times.

The coach will yell at him?

I can only control what I can control. Most of my regular partners call the same way I do, though.

That said, I can't remember telling someone to get out of the lane in the past 4-5 years. I do get on people about contact and post play early and I keep that talk pretty general, although I'm loud enough for them to hear me:

"Easy!"

"Straight up!"

"Knock it off!"

If they don't get the hint after one of these phrases, I'll just call a foul and send a message that way.