Designated spot after timeout / made basket?

[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."

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

"On the floor" describes a location, not an action.
It doesn't tell anyone whether the player had begun shooting yet or not.

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

That makes sense as that person is simply telling you that your decision to not award FTs because of the location of the player (your verbalization of "on the floor") is incorrect. You just aren't understanding the protest.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

That makes sense as that person is simply telling you that your decision to not award FTs because of the location of the player (your verbalization of "on the floor") is incorrect. You just aren't understanding the protest.

Granted, the verbalization "on the floor" is incorrect, from a rulebook standpoint.
But this is not a literal argument. The player can be off the floor for an extended period of time which is obvious to everyone and still not be in the act of shooting.

If a coach asks "Was it (the foul) on the floor?" Is it ok for me to simply say yes or is it necessary to give a language lesson?

Is it incorrect? yes Is it misleading? no Is this issue worthy of this many posts? definitely not


I've asked this before: Why do we not complain when a coach yells for a "walking" call? Does the word walk appear anywhere in the books?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

Yabut....if you use "before the shot", then maybe no one would have anything to yell about.

[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!

[Nevadaref]

Some thoughts from other frequent posters here as written on the NFHS forum:

Originally Posted by The Cranky Old Dinosaur

Common sense tells me that "on the floor" has NO relevance at all when it comes to having to decide whether a player was in the act of shooting or not. A player can be "on the floor" and still be awarded 2 or 3 FT's for being fouled in the act of shooting. Common sense also tells me that you don't seem to understand the relevant rule very well.

It's got nothing at all to do with arrogance. It's got everything to do with knowing and understanding the rules so that the play can be called correctly. It's also got everything to do with educating other officials so that they can also call the play correctly.

"On the floor" does NOT equate to being fouled BEFORE starting the act of shooting. Never has. Never will. It is simply not true in ALL cases and that's why that phrase shouldn't ever be used.

Originally Posted by BillyMac's twin brother

What part of this photo did you not understand? If this cute little kid gets fouled in this position, I'm giving him two shots, even though he's "on the floor".

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am going to have to back Woody and others on this one. Saying "On the floor" is not only confusing, but incorrect. And the point has been made here or many other places as incorrect. You do not have to have a bad holiday to point this out or to say this is incorrect. It is incorrect because the act of shooting starts with the habitual motion to the basket, which often starts without a player leaving the floor. Sorry, but that language is wrong. Do not take it personally.

[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.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

Whether you agree or disagree, the point they're making is that it mattereth not what you think this figure of speech means. It only matters what the hearer thinks it means. If it means something else to the hearer, then you have not conveyed the information you intended.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by just another ref

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

While it* is sometimes correct, it (too often) gets interpreted as an absolute. Then, when the absolute correctly isn't called, fans, coaches, players wonder why.

So, don't use it.

* - "It" can be over the back, reach, on the floor, etc.

[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....