Designated spot after timeout / made basket?

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Saying baseline doesn't really hurt anything but there is still no reason to do it. If you are going to change this term because a bunch of ignorant people don't know the proper term then where do you draw the line on how many fan terms to use?

Lots of people call basket interference goaltending. It really isn't a big deal. Either way the ball is dead and points are awarded if committed at the opponents basket. So then some new official comes along and calls a technical foul for basket interference during a free throw. Using the proper terms would have avoided all the confusion. It is best to just use the right terms instead of trying to decide which ones being changed would cause confusion.

Cobra,
This comment is one of the many that proliferate the divide between coaches and referees -- and in my opinion, there is no reason for it. REFEREES are the ONLY ones who refer to the line at either of the court ONLY as the endline. Are we correct, yes, we are. At the same time, considering all coaches, players and spectators as being ignorant because they use the term "baseline" in lieu of "endline" will likely lead to a career of working against the coaches instead of with them.

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Must be a regional thing, but I don't recall hearing a coach ever asking for "walking". But I've worked with a much older guy who occasionally refers to traveling as "progression".

BITS,
I never ask for or state "walking", but I may quick state "walk." This is no different than stating a single-syllable color when making an out-of-bounds call (even though one of our assignors insist that we call maroon "maroon" and not red and purple "purple" and not blue). The point is, it is quicker to make the single-syllable comment as opposed to saying "he travelled." I have also found that the official is more apt to make the call once or twice a game stating "walk" as opposed to the multiple-syllable statement.

Originally Posted by just another ref

I didn't say either was or wasn't acceptable. Some officials do say "over the back." I, personally, don't like this one, because not only is it inaccurate from a rulebook standpoint, I don't consider it to be a good description of a foul.

"On the floor" in the books means nothing. But when you say it, everybody knows what you meant.

JAF,
The problem with "on the floor" is that it leads, in my opinion, to the dreaded comment by the coach of the defending team when a basket IS counted, "This is NOT the NBA!!!"

I think it is much better to come out clearly signalling "no shot" and indicating "before" (as in the foul occurred BEFORE the commencement of the shooting motion) works much better. Sometimes young players NEVER jump when they shoot a shot.

You are correct that most coaches equate "on the floor" to mean "non-shooting foul." But, unlike the terms "end line" vs. "baseline" which mean the EXACT same thing, "on the floor" can describe something that is identical to a different outcome (i.e. a player who has picked up his dribble driving in for a lay-up). This is the commencement of the shooting motion, yet coaches will say the player was "on the floor" when he was fouled. Hence, this particular terminology is leading to problems during games.

More than $.02 this time....

[BillyMac]

Coaches talk "Coachese" and officials talk "Officialese". One language is not any better, or any worse, than the other one. When officials talk to other officials we use terms like "endline", "request a timeout", etc. When coaches talk to other coaches, or players, they use terms like "baseline", "call a timeout", etc. No problems until coaches and officials have to talk to each other. That's when we need the Rosetta Stone.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Coaches talk "Coachese" and officials talk "Officialese". One language is not any better, or any worse, than the other one. When officials talk to other officials we use terms like "endline", "request a timeout", etc. When coaches talk to other coaches, or players, they use terms like "baseline", "call a timeout", etc. No problems until coaches and officials have to talk to each other. That's when we need the Rosetta Stone.

....either that or a little common sense. This constant "we vs. them", "they are ignorant", "our job is far harder than theirs", etc. chatter just doesn't make sense. Coaches and officials BOTH have jobs to do. BOTH have DIFFICULT jobs. As long as we BOTH respect that, the game tends to flow much better.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Coaches talk "Coachese" and officials talk "Officialese". One language is not any better, or any worse, than the other one. When officials talk to other officials we use terms like "endline", "request a timeout", etc. When coaches talk to other coaches, or players, they use terms like "baseline", "call a timeout", etc. No problems until coaches and officials have to talk to each other. That's when we need the Rosetta Stone.

Nonsense. When coaches/fans use phrases like "baseline", "walking", "over the back", "reach", etc. 94.73% of us know exactly what they're referring to, even though we don't use the same verbiage. Most of us ain't that stoopid that we can't translate coachese without throwing a hissy fit at the same time.

I'm probably in the minority, but to me it's just another in a very long list of things that I basically could give a damn about when it comes to officiating. There's one helluva lot more important things to worry about when we're out there with a whistle in our mouth and not a friend in the building except our partner(s)..(and that's hopefully).

Yes, our fellow officials should use the proper verbiage. And that includes not using "on the floor" because it just doesn't apply in all cases. But what difference does it really make if coaches or fans use some different descriptive words than we do and we still understand what they're trying to say to us?

Much ado about nuthin' imho.....

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Our fellow officials should use the proper verbiage.

Especially in an training setting. It's important that new officials know that "on the floor", may, or may not, be the same as a player being fouled in the act of shooting. That "calling" a timeout involves both a request and a granting of such. That a "reach" may, or may not, be the same as an illegal use of hands. That "over the back" may, or may not, be the same as a push. Also, we better not be telling new officials to use the phrase "wait 'til hits the rim". As far as "endline" or "baseline", I really don't think it matters.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Jurassic Referee

Nonsense. When coaches/fans use phrases like "baseline", "walking", "over the back", "reach", etc. 94.73% of us know exactly what they're referring to, even though we don't use the same verbiage. Most of us ain't that stoopid that we can't translate coachese without throwing a hissy fit at the same time.

I'm probably in the minority, but to me it's just another in a very long list of things that I basically could give a damn about when it comes to officiating. There's one helluva lot more important things to worry about when we're out there with a whistle in our mouth and not a friend in the building except our partner(s)..(and that's hopefully).

Yes, our fellow officials should use the proper verbiage. And that includes not using "on the floor" because it just doesn't apply in all cases. But what difference does it really make if coaches or fans use some different descriptive words than we do and we still understand what they're trying to say to us?

Much ado about nuthin' imho.....

Agreed. If the coach asks me if the throw in is on th base line, I tell him / her "yes."

If the coach asks where the throw-in is, I say "On the end-line." S/he understands.

:shrug:

[mutantducky]

I like potatoes

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

If the coach asks me if the throw in is on the base line, I tell him / her "yes."

What? You seriously mean that you don't take this opportunity to enlighten the coach in regard to what the correct terminology is? It just takes a few minutes to show him that the word baseline never appears in the rulebook and if you have time, the casebook, whereas the word endline appears in multiple rulebook and casebook situations. Plus, you let an opportunity slip through your fingers to point out to the coach, in a very sarcastic manner, "Coach. Baselines are in baseball. This is a basketball game". If we don't take care of business coaches all over the world will never know the difference between a baseline and an endline. And what a sad state of basketball affairs that would truly be.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

What? You seriously mean that you don't take this opportunity to enlighten the coach in regard to what the correct terminology is?

No, I don't.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

No, I don't.

It was a rhetorical question.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Cobra,
This comment is one of the many that proliferate the divide between coaches and referees -- and in my opinion, there is no reason for it. REFEREES are the ONLY ones who refer to the line at either of the court ONLY as the endline. Are we correct, yes, we are. At the same time, considering all coaches, players and spectators as being ignorant because they use the term "baseline" in lieu of "endline" will likely lead to a career of working against the coaches instead of with them.

Yes, they are ignorant...sort of like officials who refer to all other officials as referees They may be intelligent people in their normal lives but but it is easy to see that they are ignorant when it comes to the rules of basketball. These people yell things like "no contact?!?!" when they expect a foul on the defense but the defender had legal guarding position and was vertical. They yell "but it was tipped" on backcourt violations when the offense was last to touch in the frontcourt. They yell "he lifted his pivot foot" when wanting a traveling call after the player released a pass or try before bringing the foot back down.

Just by listening to them talk it is obvious that the vast majority are ignorant of the rules. Of course not using the term endline isn't as important as other things but it is still an indicator of overall rules knowledge.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Yes, they are ignorant...sort of like officials who refer to all other officials as referees They may be intelligent people in their normal lives but but it is easy to see that they are ignorant when it comes to the rules of basketball. These people yell things like "no contact?!?!" when they expect a foul on the defense but the defender had legal guarding position and was vertical. They yell "but it was tipped" on backcourt violations when the offense was last to touch in the frontcourt. They yell "he lifted his pivot foot" when wanting a traveling call after the player released a pass or try before bringing the foot back down.

Just by listening to them talk it is obvious that the vast majority are ignorant of the rules. Of course not using the term endline isn't as important as other things but it is still an indicator of overall rules knowledge.

Good luck, my friend. Perhaps at some point, you will look at coaches in a different light. If not, you can continue your "I am smart, they are ignorant" mentality. Of course, they may know significantly more than you do about the tactics of basketball while not knowing a few of the nuances of the game, but if you want to view others as "ignorant" that is your choice.

I am guessing that you don't know ever nuance of every rule, either, but if you wish to think yourself as being infallible, once again, good luck...

I am guessing that I would not want to see you referee, oops, officiate my game. Officials that know everything about the game tend to be rather mediocre REFEREES in my opinion.

P.S. Um, I believe that one of the officials in each game is actually called a referee, but I am sure you already knew that.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Good luck, my friend. Perhaps at some point, you will look at coaches in a different light. If not, you can continue your "I am smart, they are ignorant" mentality. Of course, they may know significantly more than you do about the tactics of basketball while not knowing a few of the nuances of the game, but if you want to view others as "ignorant" that is your choice.

What exactly does any that have to do with the vast majority them being ignorant of the rules?

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by Cobra

What exactly does any that have to do with the vast majority them being ignorant of the rules?

You have already stated that many officials are "ignorant" because they don't use the word "officials", but rather use the word "referee." This makes many of your partners "ignorant." Because basketball coaches don't know EVERY rule and case, you consider them to be "ignorant."

My point is that the RULES and CASES of the game that officials are expected to know are but a subset of the overall game of basketball. There are a plethora of topics concerning the coaching of a team in basketball that, while they must be played within the RULES of the game, WE as OFFICIALS are NOT required to know.

As an official, it HELPS to know the movements in a flex offense, what the particular "rules" are within a team's motion offense, how frequently skip passes are made, whether a team likes to "pin" when reversing the ball, what types of screens teams like to set, what cuts teams like to make off of those screens, what the screeners do after they set those screens, whether the defense is jump switching screens, prefers to hedge/recover on screens, how a team rotates in their man defense, who a team uses to double down if the ball is in the post, etc., etc. etc.

As officials, we are NOT required to know these aspects of basketball -- we ARE required to know as many of the RULES as we possibly can -- almost NONE of us actually know EVERY RULE AND CASE that can possibly happen in a game, we do our best, but we cannot be perfect as there can be a scenario that is not covered in the RULES or with a CASE. At times, we make the wrong decision. I don't think this necessarily makes us "ignorant", it makes us human.

Similarly, coaches need to understand the nuances of the game of basketball from a tactical and strategic standpoint, be able to make adjustments to the opponents tactics, strategies, etc. The vast majority of coaches know the vast majority of the RULES of the game. Just like officials are NOT required to know the nuances of the tactics and strategies, coaches do NOT go through the same level of training on the RULES and CASES of the game (one meeting vs. the FIVE required by officials every year, in Ohio, for example). Just because a coach yells "he tipped it" on a last-touch-first-touch backcourt violation ("ignorant" RULE, in my opinion, by the way), I don't assume the coach to be "ignorant." I will explain that I saw the touch, unfortunately for his team it is still a backcourt violation since his team was the last to touch in the frontcourt and the last to touch in the backcourt.

My point to you is that OTHERS may perceive your apparent arrogance -- officials are "ignorant", coaches are "ignorant" -- in a negative light. You may be just as "ignorant" of other things WITHIN the game of basketball outside of the RULES and CASES.

Successful referees (done with intent) tend to manage to have a good, professional and respecting relationship with fellow officials and coaches alike. If you find that at some point (not now, but at some point) in your officiating career, your career is going slower than you would like, you might want to consider this. On the other hand, you could just consider the assignors and ADs to be "ignorant" as well.

[Cobra]

Why are you writing so much? You seem to agree that coaches are ignorant of the rules.

As it with everything there is a vocabulary which goes with the subject.; basketball rules are no different. What type of vocabulary a person uses is generally a good indicator of their knowledge in that subject.