Designated spot after timeout / made basket?

[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.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

Then why not simply say, "No shot" or "Before the shot"?

"On the floor" describes a location, not an action.
It doesn't tell anyone whether the player had begun shooting yet or not. Thus, it is a very poor phrase to use for such situations.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Then why not simply say, "No shot" or "Before the shot"?

"On the floor" describes a location, not an action.
It doesn't tell anyone whether the player had begun shooting yet or not. Thus, it is a very poor phrase to use for such situations.

This is actually the one I use the great majority of the time.

It must. Every time I use it someone yells, "But, he was shooting."

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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.

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 occurring before the motion which habitually proceeds the try has begun.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Cobra

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 occurring before the motion which habitually proceeds the try has begun.

Hey, I think I just wrote that!

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Cobra

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 occurring before the motion which habitually proceeds the try has begun.

I don't consider it to be a description at all, but merely a figure of speech which conveys information.

[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.....