Crew Consistency

[referee99]

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?

[Nevadaref]

NO. Talk like an official, not a moron.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by referee99

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?

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

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?

[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.

[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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by referee99

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?

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.

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.