If I could change one rule, it would be....

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Not at all. When someone says, "hey ref!" or refer to "the refs," at least they would be correct.

Anyway, nice catch, Welpe. Obviously, I overlooked the original 13, but when you consider that referees and umpires had separate duties -- far different from today -- you wonder if the term "umpire" has long outlasted its use.

It's semantics.

Perhaps we should rename the endline since everyone calls it the "baseline." Or we could add an "over the back" foul.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's semantics.

Perhaps we should rename the endline since everyone calls it the "baseline." Or we could add an "over the back" foul.

With the Boris Karloff mechanic?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

With the Boris Karloff mechanic?

Also known as the "creeping death" foul.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Perhaps we should rename the endline since everyone calls it the "baseline." Or we could add an "over the back" 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.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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

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.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And what's the proven flaw in "baseline" if we change it in the rule book. [sic]

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.

[Adam]

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?

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by bainsey

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.

The NFHS actually did change their volleyball officials' designations a couple years ago, from referee and umpire to R1 and R2. But, in that case, it actually made sense. More widely used rules sets have long called them R1 and R2. The two officials have distinct responsibilities and the R1 has clear authority to overrule all other officials. The distinction is widely acknowledged in common usage, with the two officials often being called the "up official" and "down official".

But, in basketball there is only one common usage, and that's "Ref". The distinction between referee and umpire is minor and of no consequence to anyone except officials and assignors. The current designations are traditional and are consistent between rules sets.

It just ain't broke...