Designated spot after timeout / made basket?

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by rgncjn

When the team's emerge after the timeout, is Team B still entitled to "run the baseline," or are the confined to a "designated spot" throw-in?

Originally Posted by cmhjordan23

Just a quick note. Same holds true after a free throw. Free throw is made, they can run the base line. If they call a timeout, they still have the baseline and also can choose on which side of the hoop they would like ball.

Use the term "end line."

There is no reference to base line in either the Case Book or the Rule Book.

Base lines are in baseball.

Using proper terminology is something I am still getting used to, but is important for credibility and consistency.

[CMHCoachNRef]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Use the term "end line."

There is no reference to base line in either the Case Book or the Rule Book.

Base lines are in baseball.

Using proper terminology is something I am still getting used to, but is important for credibility and consistency.

Actually, coaches, players, and frequently, spectators refer to the lines at either end of the floor to be base lines.

As officials, we refer to them as end lines. I will frequently tell the player "You can run the end line -- I am going to hand it to you and get out of the way (assuming the other team is pressing). Of course, they know those lines as baselines, but that is OK. I have never heard a coach yell "no end line", but I frequently here coaches yell "no baseline." As a referee, if you think that statement implies that you should be looking for chalk to be kicked up, you are likely mistaken.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by CMHCoachNRef

Actually, coaches, players, and frequently, spectators refer to the lines at either end of the floor to be base lines.

As officials, we refer to them as end lines. I will frequently tell the player "You can run the end line -- I am going to hand it to you and get out of the way (assuming the other team is pressing). Of course, they know those lines as baselines, but that is OK. I have never heard a coach yell "no end line", but I frequently here coaches yell "no baseline." As a referee, if you think that statement implies that you should be looking for chalk to be kicked up, you are likely mistaken.

I completely understand. How "they" refer to it is none of my concern. How we refer to it is.

I haven't been doing this as long as some. My mentors try to teach me the "right ways" to do things. I read the books, practice, and go to this Forum to get better and learn. I still have a long way to go but like to think I'm getting better.

My point to new refs is this - learn to do things right the first time and use the right terminology not what coaches, players, spectators use. Help dispel all those myths we constatnly talk about. Be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

Billy Joel once wrote; "Get it right the first time it's the main thing. Get it right the second time, it's not the same thing." (or something close to that).

Off soap box.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Use the term "end line."

There is no reference to base line in either the Case Book or the Rule Book.

Base lines are in baseball.

Using proper terminology is something I am still getting used to, but is important for credibility and consistency.

Whatever. At least the tiresome insistence that time outs are requested and granted v. called serves to highlight an actual distinction between reality and expectation. But the only people who care about calling it the end line v. base line are the rule book editor and a handful of the most anal folks here. You get no credibility boost in the real world by calling it the end line. And if you are actually concerned about consistency, then be consistent with the 99.9% of the human race who call it the base line.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Whatever. At least the tiresome insistence that time outs are requested and granted v. called serves to highlight an actual distinction between reality and expectation. But the only people who care about calling it the end line v. base line are the rule book editor and a handful of the most anal folks here. You get no credibility boost in the real world by calling it the end line. And if you are actually concerned about consistency, then be consistent with the 99.9% of the human race who call it the base line.

Agreed. During a timeout, coach is drawing up a play, and asks where the throw in is. You say on the end line, he may not even know what you mean.
I like people to know what I'm saying.

I don't say "over the back."

I do say, on occasion, "on the floor."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by just another ref

Agreed. During a timeout, coach is drawing up a play, and asks where the throw in is. You say on the end line, he may not even know what you mean.
I like people to know what I'm saying.

I don't say "over the back."

I do say, on occasion, "on the floor."

Why is one acceptable and the other not? They both perpetuate myths, IMO, and neither is accurate per the rules.

[Nevadaref]

grune,
I agree with your effort to use proper terminology, and you would get more credibility if I were evaluating you. Good job, keep it up.

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why is one acceptable and the other not? They both perpetuate myths, IMO, and neither is accurate per the rules.

Agreed. I can't stand it when officials say, "on the floor."

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why is one acceptable and the other not? They both perpetuate myths, IMO, and neither is accurate per the rules.

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.

[Adam]

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.

"On the floor" perpetuates a myth just as much as "over the back," "reach," or the traveling signal on a throwin spot violation. "On the floor" implies that since the foul was on the floor the basket shouldn't count. This is what leads to coaches, players, and fans crying "this isn't the NBA" when we count a shot that was begun on the floor.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

"On the floor" perpetuates a myth just as much as "over the back," "reach," or the traveling signal on a throwin spot violation. "On the floor" implies that since the foul was on the floor the basket shouldn't count. This is what leads to coaches, players, and fans crying "this isn't the NBA" when we count a shot that was begun on the floor.

Disagree. I don't think this one is interpreted literally. "On the floor" means not on the shot. It doesn't imply the shot doesn't count, it means the shot doesn't count. I don't think many people relate it directly to the position of the player with regard to touching the floor or not.

[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.

[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.

[grunewar]

Originally Posted by Back In The Saddle

Whatever. At least the tiresome insistence that time outs are requested and granted v. called serves to highlight an actual distinction between reality and expectation. But the only people who care about calling it the end line v. base line are the rule book editor and a handful of the most anal folks here. You get no credibility boost in the real world by calling it the end line. And if you are actually concerned about consistency, then be consistent with the 99.9% of the human race who call it the base line.

Fair enough.

This advice was given to me by folks I respect, as I do many here, and it was advice I chose to use as part of my vocabulary and learning.

As we have discussed before, just like anything else you read/hear it is up to the listener to take it/or leave it. I took it.

No harm. No foul.

And Padgett, I ain't biting!

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by grunewar

Fair enough.

This advice was given to me by folks I respect, as I do many here, and it was advice I chose to use as part of my vocabulary and learning.

As we have discussed before, just like anything else you read/hear it is up to the listener to take it/or leave it. I took it.

No harm. No foul.

And Padgett, I ain't biting!

Sorry. I shouldn't have quoted you on my rant. It's the idea, or rather the dogmatism surrounding the idea that I meant to attack, not you or your stance on the issue. I figured it was about time an opposing viewpoint surfaced.

IW, resume at POI.