Yep, exactly. "Baseline" means exactly the same thing as "endline".

I hate when partners say "On the floor" and look like they're counting a made basket. I also have partners say "over the back" and "reach" when they're verbalizing fouls.

A whole lot of really good college officials use this "insipid" mechanic. You seem a tad cranky this morning.

The "really good college officials" use the signal AFTER the play to tell the coach why there wasn't a foul (or something else).

Too many "not so good HS officials" use it DURING the play and then run the risk of a partner blowing his/her whistle for the foul on the play.

It's bound to get you in trouble, IMO, as soon as you start giving that signal while your partner is calling a foul. I've also seen some good college officials use the travel signal on a throw-in violation, doesn't make it any less dumb.

Though I might be a bit cranky.

This is a good point. Snaq wasn't quite clear why and how his partners were using the "insipid" mechanic, which is why I clarified.

I use it both to indicate a blocked shot when I'm hearing chatter from a coach, as well as to indicate to my partner that a pass or shot has been tipped on an out of bounds play that came from my primary.

I think it's good to be uniform in our mechanics. But I also recognize that certain unofficial mechanics and terms have creeped into the general lexicon of basketball. There are certain things I choose to be anal about, and refusing to say "endline" instead of "baseline" in every instance just isn't one of them.

I agree. In this situation, using it is going to get you in some trouble. That doesn't make the signal, in and of itself, insipid though.

Yes this is stupid, but it's also not really what we're talking about. This is using an approved mechanic for something that it's not indicated for.

Cheer up, it's Friday!

Sorry, I must be cranky today
 

What myth?

A drives to the goal. B rides A's hip with his hand and uses it to push A away from the lane as A starts to drive.

I call a foul on B for pushing A, and after my whistle blows A takes two steps and then shoots the ball, which goes in.

I call the foul, clearly before the next two steps and shot, and now you tell me it's wrong to communicate the foul was committed on the floor before A finished the drive and took a shot?

The second I go out and sell the call as 'on the floor' I have now told the coaches, teams and crowd that there was no shot, the ball was dead two steps before A put the ball up, and the basket doesn't count. To say there is something wrong with that I just can't understand. Using those words are just part of the way to sell the call, along with proper signals to make sure it's clear.

Yes, the words have to be used carefully, and I understand they can be misused by officials who should call the 2 shot foul instead of the common foul on the floor. But again, I state my point, this is another case where we are being forced into a one size fits all way to officiate, and it is not a good thing.

How many times have seen over the years where rule, interp, or mechanic Z is taught as being the best way to do things, then six months later the opposite is now considered to be the best way to do things?

All that matters as an official is to get the call right, referee the players, and give both sides an equal chance to win the game. How you do that is not a "one size fits all" proposition.

Now I'll just go back to lurking.

There are certain phrases that are understood by the "basketball community" (coaches, fans, players) and that officials tend to get all bent out of shape about. "Over the back" is one of them.

I don't have a problem with the term. I don't use it when I officiate, but it's not like I'm going to go out there and act like a coach who's talking to me about it is an idiot, either. "No such thing as over the back, coach." That's just plain silly.

We have to live in reality. And in reality, "on the floor," "over the back" and "reach" are just phrases that are accepted in the basketball community. Doesn't mean we have to use them when we officiate, but acting like they are perpetuating some myth and harming the game is rather absurd.

Our job (with coaches, at least, when asked) is to communicate why the action on the floor did or did not constitute a foul. No more, no less. 99 percent of fans and coaches are going to understand when you say "on the floor" that the calling official means it's not a shooting foul. If you have that big of a problem with it, pregame it with your partner. "Hey Fred, when I say "on the floor," I mean it's not a shooting foul."

Getting all bent out of shape about the words used is just a waste of time.

Oh my!! HS...
Perhaps you should slow down your whistle on SDF drives to the basket OR revisit continuous motion??
Why are so many of us hung up on "selling it on the floor" vs. looking for a reason to put them on the line?

Most would say that "before the shot" (or "during the drive") communicates the status better than "on the floor."

Perhaps, but you can be shooting on the floor. That is the problem with that phrase. When the official after you puts a player on the line who was fouled "on the floor", you've just opened the door for unnecessary grief.

It simply conveys the wrong information.

Sure, there are things that change and things that really don't matter, but this is not one of them. endline/baseline....OK. Hit/Hands/Illegal use of Hands....OK. On the floor vs no-shot....different because they're not mutually exclusive.

My thoughts exactly. Let's not reward the defense for fouling. If I'm too err, it will be towards putting the player on the line.

Never understood the big deal a lot of officials make to put a foul "on the floor", even when I was a rookie.

I agree that a foul committed before the try is (usually) also "on the floor."

The problem is that many then come to believe that all fouls "on the floor" result in no FTs (assuming it's before the bonus), and that's not true.

If A then B does not imply if B then A.

It's the same with "reach" and "over the back" -- a player may have fouled by reaching, but it doesn't mean that all reaching is a foul.

edit to add: I'm not going to tell a coach "no such thing as over the back" but I will say "no displacement on that, coach". And, yes, too many coaches (seem to) think that a taller player should be penalized for reaching over a shorter player to get a rebound.

My problem with "on the floor" enthusiasts is when they come in with a late whistle. "On the floor" whistles need to be early and sharp so that it's clear when the foul occurred.

Or better yet, let the play develop a bit and make sure the foul is in the act of shooting.