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:

And they can choose (the Players) on which side of the hoop they would like the ball? I have never heard that.

I've never thought about it before. But there is no designated spot, so the thrower can choose anywhere along the base line to set up. Normally I go to whichever side of the basket is convenient for the crew, and I rarely have a thrower indicate he'd like the ball somewhere else.

I've had it happen a couple times in 3-man games.

So there is no designated spot, but does it say somewhere in rule book that the thrower can choose anywhere along the base line to set up.

Yes.

It's also true after a made three point goal. Just thought I'd clarify.

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

So what you're saying is anytime points are scored they have the option to move along the endline. :D

:) Yep.

Or awarded. ;)

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.

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

Knew that was coming. Thanks for not disappointing. :o

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.

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.

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! :D

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

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."

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

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.

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.

I can appreciate a good Frankenstein plug. :)

I really enjoyed those old school ,crappy horror movies,alot.:cool:

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.

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

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?

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".

Once you get past the ideological purity arguments, the reality is that it's all about communication. If the words you or I choose do not effectively communicate, we are using the wrong words. If they do effectively communicate, they are not wrong. However, there may be words we could chose that communicate even more effectively. I think we ought to always be open to that possibility and be on the look out for better alternatives.

Neither. Say, "yes, it was before the shot."

1. If a coach asks me if it was "on the floor" after I've waved off a shot, my answer is "it was before the shot." It doesn't really take any longer than "yes" and it's actually accurate.

2. "On the floor" fits into a list of misleading phrases and signals that perpetuate myths.

a) travel signal on a throwin spot violatoin
b) "reach"
c) "over the back"
d) "wait til it hits the rim"
e) "everyone move back behind the half court line"

3. Coaches here don't ask for "walking," and the good ones don't ask for reaches or over the back calls.

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.

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.

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!!!" :eek:

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....

When In Rome, Speak Roman ...
 

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.

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.....

Training Language ...
 

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.

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:

I like potatoes

And You Call Yourself An Official ???
 

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.

No, I don't.

Questioned And Answered ...
 

It was a rhetorical question.

Yes, they are ignorant...sort of like officials who refer to all other officials as referees :cool: 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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

You just don't get it, my friend. Since you know it all, just keep on going the way you are -- while you still know it all. I am sure you will not hit a glass ceiling at some point due to your know-it-all attitude. :rolleyes:

Good luck. I can only guess that you are one of those who did not play at a particularly high level, studied a Rule Book and, Wham, now you know EVERYTHING about basketball.
:eek: