Designated spot after timeout / made basket?
 

I just need a quick refresher and do not have my books handy.

A1 makes a successful two point try. B1 retireves the ball and attempts to pass the ball inbounds after the made basket. At three seconds into the official's count, B1 requests, and is granted a timeout.

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?

They would be allowed to run the end line.

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.

Pet peeve alert....as drilled into my head by this Forum
 

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.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

Then what do you think about his terminology of the having the team "call" a timeout?

Oh boy - here we go again!

OK, let's not.

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."

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!

More importantly, if the defense commits a violation or foul during the throw-in that results in a throw-in on the end line, the throw-in team is still entitled to "run the baseline".

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. ;)

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.

BITS - it's all good! :)

I respect your, and most everyone else's, opinions and just as importantly, their right to have em and post em!

Human language is an endlessly evolving animal, and it evolves most often because of common usage among a very big "bunch of ignorant people". As my father used to say, "If everybody called a horse a cow, it would be a cow."

And before the pitchfork and torch crew begin massing, I'm not condemning anybody for using end line. I've even started using it myself on the forum just to avoid the mindless pissing contest. But really, where is the compelling argument on this? Unlike goaltending v. basket interference and request/grant v. calling a time out, base line v. end line is a distinction without a difference.

There are only two arguments I can find being made for insisting on this "proper usage". The first is that the rule book uses end line. Yet I fail to find such dogmatic insistence on the usage of "try" or "false double foul" or "illegal use of hands" either here or in the real world. So it must be the other argument, which is nothing more than "the cool kids are doing it." :rolleyes: