With the Boris Karloff mechanic?

Also known as the "creeping death" foul.

I saw that Karloff mechanic more than once at the UMaine/Boston U. game yesterday. To say such mechanics are discouraged by our organization would be an understatement. (When in Rome, I guess.)

Anyway, if you really want to get down to linguistics, Snaq, there are reasons why those two examples wouldn't work. "Umpire" is more of a semantics thing, I suppose, but it's more than about simply making a change to reflect common usage. That common usage would have to be literally accurate, as well.

I thought your whole reason was because we're never called "umpire." (common usage)

The accuracy of the terms is completely arbitrary and determined by the rule book. Heck, Arbiter uses R1, R2, and R3; but guys in my association automatically adjust to R, U1, and U2, during pregame. "Who's the R again?"

"Assistant Referee" has connotations to it that are negative, IMO. "Head referee" denotes more authority than really exists (again, IMO).

IOW, it ain't broke.

Scorebooks also have referee/umpire designations. Our Arbiter has R, U1 & U2 designations. My prior one in VT did as well. The fans, players and coaches don't know the rules anyway, so why make a change here?

Not whole. As you pointed out, it can't be change for change's sake. The change has to make verbal sense (whereas "baseline" and "over the back" have proven flaws).

I don't see anything negative about "A.R.," as it's used in soccer, but it's true that there's not a lot of authority involved for a "head" referee in basketball. For some reason, it doesn't stop us from asking, colloqually, "who's the boss tonight?"

For me, it just doesn't make sense that we're continuing to use a term that is rarely used or understood outside our circle, particularly if there's a clearer alternative.

You could say that about rules 1-10 as well.

Ref is short for referee. The other officials would have to be called assistant refs to be correct.

The arbiter uses whatever the administrator wants it is use.

So I guess all the people who never knew that there was a referee and an umpire are now going to know that there is a referee and an assistant referee? Seems like if they didn't know what the officials were called before they aren't going to magically just figure it out now.

Actually it is commonly understood that the lead official is called the referee and the others are called something else as it is common to many sports such as: Basketball, football, rugby, soccer, hockey, sumo wrestling...

There'd be a helluva mess if we had 5 referees on a football field.

I don't mind the two lines.

It's the extra ten feet I hate! :)

There's nothing incorrect about the current usage. And what's the proven flaw in "baseline" if we change it in the rule book. "Baseline" is an almost exact analogy to the change your proposing. A semantic change based on popular usage; nothing more.

As I was told, you can't have a baseline, if there aren't any bases.

FWIW, the NBA rule book uses both "baseline" and "endline." I just did a quick online search, and I only saw "endline" in FIBA, NCAA, and of course, NFHS.

There's nothing inherently wrong with either term; it's just that one is a rule term for an OOB line and one is a rule term for something else.

And what's with "sic," are you commenting on my use of a sentence fragment rather than a complete sentence? :D

Jeopardy! Please answer in the form of a question. ;)

LOL Yeah, that was it. (Question, not a fragment.) The journalist in me never dies. I spend four years getting a degree in journalism, and what do I do with it now? I type "[sic]" on a stinkin' online forum. :D