Like I noted, the vast majority of the time, people get the intended meaning. However, simply saying "before the shot" when required gets the same point across without conveying the idea that if the shooter was on the floor when he was fouled he won't get free throws. And yes, I get that question a lot from coaches and players.

"Wasn't he on the floor?"

"Yes, but he had started his shot."

At best, this ends with a blank stare. At worst, it ends with a snarky comment from the referee. Somewhere in the middle of those, it ends with a technical foul.

A simple no shot (use the wave off if need be). Follow that with the team and where the throw-in will be if you feel like it.


Everyone knows what "over the back" means but we still don't want officials reporting fouls as "over the back" or even have it in their lexicon.

I can also say that in my experience, officials that use "on the floor" are generally poor at applying continuous motion, and I wouldn't doubt that using this phrase somehow influences their thinking in that a player on the floor isn't in the act.

I do not think it is a requirement to use every term that the rulebook uses to communicate to people that do not know the rulebook language. Yes, we should you rulebook language as a standard, but there are times when it will not always convey the proper message without having an elongated discussion with a player or coach. And when they ask, "Can I move?" they certainly are not using rulebook language and I do not have the energy to try to make sure they understand what that means in the rulebook. Just like when a coach ask me on a block charge call, "Was he set", I might tell them "yes" and move on.

Neither of you live in my state. Neither of you are an assignor I work for. Neither of you are the Head Clinician. So it is nice that this is part of your experience, but it is certainly not my experience or any experience I have heard of until this very discussion. So obviously what I have been doing for years (and not what I say every time BTW) has never been a problem to the point where I had to give a T for what I said. And I have never had an argument over the issue as well. I will certainly be more aware, but I doubt it is going to change anything I will say or not say. I do sometimes say "spot" but it depends on what has happened in the game or who I am speaking to. Sometimes, "Don't move" solves the problem.

I never said a thrower could not move under the rules under and circumstances. But you keep acting like because you say they cannot move they are taking you so literally that they actually believe they cannot move literally. I have never seen a thrower think that their feet or body was in stone as a result of what we tell them. Obviously they move if they can move their arms, which is usually required in order to throw the ball onto the court. Stop being ridiculous to try to make some point no one is making in this situation. No one is taking us that literally in anything we tell them irregardless of what you are tying to state on this site. And in #2 it is a fact that many more officials do not wear a belt on the court, but you do. You have been ridiculed by some here for that very reason and you keep wearing a belt proudly. Does that fact change what you do or what you wear? Nope, so why would this be so compelling that two people that live in a completely different place and one of you never works 3 Person for varsity and does not work playoffs (your admission) be so compelling of an argument? And one person that said it was not a big deal actually lives in my state. That to me would be a much more compelling argument to keep doing what I have been doing if you ask me. ;)


If you want to come up with any list that is your right. But just like most lists people will disagree with the content or the order. Every watched the NFL Network and the Top 10 list shows. People disagree with the content all the time. This will be no different.

Peace

Well good for them. I cannot recall the last time someone told them they had to and that is where the players magically go. The only time this becomes even a remote issue is when a coach wants to talk to a player and it has been only a couple of times I can remember an official not allowing that interaction because they were not at half court (on the side of where the T FTs were taking place). Do not confuse what a few people say on this site and equate it to most officials do on a regular basis in their careers or games they work.

Peace

Well isn't "spot" not a complete description of the rule? After all it is a "Designated Spot" not a "Spot" throw-in. And if you tell them spot, do they know what that means?

That is why it is spitting hairs because when you tell them "Don't move" they know they do not have the ability to "run." I consider most of this considerably shallow and silly. And I would not care either way if it works for someone to communicate to a player or coach.

Peace

I am not so sure about that. People usually only complain about this when the "back" is involved and they often think their is something special about the back for a call to be made. I do not year someone complain when someone is out jumped while facing their opponent. And they often use that term when little or no contact took place.

My experience as well. And most officials that use that term actually penalize the shooter for being on the floor or never getting off the floor during the foul when it is obvious they could not have been doing anything else but shooting the basketball. So that is one reason to not use the term IMO. And when you call a shooting foul while a player is on the floor or never is able to jump, the question you hear, "Ref wasn't he on the floor?" Those are much more compelling things to not say because the rule is completely misunderstood or applied improperly by those that use that term. I am not hearing anyone say an official misapplied a rule on a throw-in for what they might have said or did not say.

Peace

"before the shot" is just as easy to say as "on the floor" but is actually accurate in its meaning since it says that the foul occurred before the shot. A player could be shooting while still "on the floor" so a player could be getting 2 FTs having been on the floor. Why confuse thing when you don't need to?

"Spot" isn't used at the time of a foul but when administering the throwin on the backcourt endline mostly after a timeout.

If one assumes that the use of "on the floor" means an official doesn't understand continuous motion, one could also assume that an official who says "don't move" doesn't understand the details of a spot throw-in.

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Yup. So many inconsistencies. :rolleyes:

Peace ...
 

"Yes" was not on my list of things not to say.

Until this week.

Sounds like a BillyMac disciple.

I never said that you did. I was just looking for some common ground. Common ground is usually a good thing, almost ranking right up there with peace.

True, but I do not see that mentioned anywhere in #2. Maybe my monitor needs adjusting?

I don't keep wearing it because I'm proud, I keep wearing it because I find it comfortable, because, according to IAABO guidelines, I can, and because belted pants are considered acceptable here in my little corner of Connecticut. I am certainly aware that a belt would be considered completely unacceptable in other parts of the country, maybe in all other parts of the country. What you are confusing for pride is actually me demonstrating what most of us already know regarding officiating, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." That's why I'm usually the one bringing up the belt, often making fun of myself.

I've never worked a state tournament game. I'm not one of the best dozen, of so, officials in our board of 325 officials. I have worked conference, and league, playoffs, including, at least, one final. In regard to three person games, I can't help it if I live in The Land That Time Forgot.

Which is exactly why I only asked for additions to the list. Knowing how the Forum works, I purposely did not ask for deletions, nor did I ask for any priority order (although I do admit that the earring statement has a very local flavor to it). My request was quite successful, with three statements being added to my list.

We Will Now Return To Our Regularly Scheduled Programing ...
 

After a few suggestions from Forum members, here's where I currently stand at this point. A reminder, this is a list of Things Officials Should Probably Not Be Saying In A Game, things that officials often, or sometimes, say during a game that do not have any basis in the rules.

"On the floor" (for fouls against players who are not in the act of shooting).
"Don't move" (before a designated spot throwin).
"Hold your spots" (before the jump ball).
"You can't stand behind him" (before a the jump ball, to a player who is directly behind an opponent, who are both ten feet off the circle).
"Everybody get behind the division line" (during a free throw for a technical, or intentional, foul).
"Let it hit the rim" (before a free throw).
"Over the back" (on a rebounding foul, it's probably a pushing foul).
"Reaching in" (on a foul against a ball handler, it's probably a holding foul, an illegal use of hands foul, or a hand check foul).
"Coach, you have one timeout left" (when, by rule, we should only be notifying head coaches when their team has been granted its final allowable timeout).
"Sit down" (to a coach who has not been charged with a technical foul).
"You have to take out your earrings" (instead of, "You can't play with earrings").

Any more additions?

Backcourt Endline Throwins ...
 

Stupid IAABO mechanics have us signaling the type of throwin, with the proper verbiage, and signal, before every throwin. Our local interpreter has told us to only do this on backcourt endline throwins, all backcourt endline throwins, not just backcourt endline throwins after time outs.

Alternative For "On The Floor" ...
 

"No shot", give the "no score" signal if the ball went in the basket, complete your at the site of the foul mechanics, including, "Possession White", and pointing to the designated spot, and then go and report the foul to the table. Easy peasey lemon squeezy.

Quote From Aristotle ???
 

Cool sounding statement.

Trying Not To Confuse In Connecticut ...
 

... or don't have to? Thus, the purpose of my list.

Well when you find that person, let me know. I have yet to meet that person that has ever been confused by the other term. Or better yet, I have never met the person that does not move literally.

Peace

Easy Answer ...
 

Hmmmm? Let's see? Because they can move?

Do You Still Stroll About In Full Daylight With A Lamp ???
 

Diogenes, is that you?

"No ahot" or "before the shot" works if the ball is released. If it's not released then OOB or "endline" of "sideline" seems to work.

"Spot" or "designated spot" is used during / just before administering a throw-in, not at the time of the foul.

Really? What a waste of time. Time would be better spent elsewhere.

Education Is The Key To Success ...
 

As a former member of my local board's training committees (both rules, and mechanics), and a current member of the newsletter committee, I respectfully disagree with you. The time to get rid of bad habits, no matter how minor those bad habits can be, is in the training stage, before these bad habits develop. It's tougher with veteran officials, we tend to be a pretty ornery bunch. Here in my little corner of Connecticut, we are constantly looking to improve our "product". Our board officers, our executive committee, our interpreter, and assistant interpreters, and our various committee chairs, are never content to rest on our laurels. Say what you will about IAABO, and I do have some problems with IAABO (see post #112), but, warts, and all, it's an organization dedicated to the education, and improvement, of basketball officials, and, at least here, on the local level, it does a pretty good job at fulfilling its goals.

And you think a player is really confused as to how they can or cannot move? OK, go with that one.

Peace

You never see a thrower keep his pivot foot as if his life depended on it?

Ok.

They can do that without us saying anything to them. You think they listen to us that deep and only go by what we tell them?

Just like another comment Billy likes to suggest we cannot say. If you tell a player they cannot wear jewelry, I have never seen a player really think that that means nothing more than their playing eligibility for the moment. I have never had a player think that because we address a jewelry issue that means at all times they cannot wear that item. But if guys on here have, that would be a first for me.

Peace

They do lots of things without us telling them anything; but I'm not convinced it didn't start long before my game, because a coach or official told them they couldn't move or called them for traveling during a throw in.

I've never seen Billy (or anyone) indicate players would get that misperception, but ok.

I have seen a silly distinction between telling a player they have to take his jewelry off and telling him he can't play with it in. Nothing to do with the player's perceptions of his jewelry capabilities post game, more of a legalese distinction without a real difference.

What Does Don't Move Really Mean ???
 

Players will often ask the administering official, but that question is usually in reference to whether, or not, they can run the endline, and I know that that's not what JRutledge is talking about.

Almost all players will either stand in their little shoulder width area, or run the endline, depending on the type of throwin. I'm pretty sure that most, but probably not all, know that they don't have to maintain a "pivot foot". I only see one, or two, inbounding excessive movement violations each season, but I also rarely see players under defensive pressure take full advantage of the liberal movement rule on a designated spot throwin. I really don't think that a large number of players actually know that the movement limits on a "spot" thrownin are actually more liberal than they believe.

Now, coaches are another story, and my main concern for avoiding, "Don't move". I know at least one, the one that I had to sit down, who thought that, "Don't move", that he probably heard from other officials on my local board (or maybe from JRutledge), either as a coach, or as a player, a few years ago, really meant "Don't move".

And lets' not forget about the occasional, incorrect, inbounding "travel" call, either from an ignorant official, or expected from an ignorant coach, or a fan. Maybe we've never observed it in person, but it's not a myth, it does exist, not often, but it really exists, like Sasquatch. Wait? I'm being told ... What?. Never mind.

This is a good example of a player being handicapped if he doesn't know the details of a rule. If the thrower is pressured, he needs to take advantage of the freedom that he does have. This is, after all, the only place where a ball fake can include jumping and returning to the floor.

All Politics Are Local, In This Case, Very Local ...
 

And for me, too. Please don't twist my words. I've already stated that this (jewelry) is a local issue. It has been a custom, on our local board, advice given to us by two different interpreters, over more than thirty years, that as a liability issue, we don't tell players to remove jewelry, but rather, we inform them that they can't play while wearing jewelry. Now they have an option. What they do after that is no concern of ours, but we won't let them play while they are wearing jewelry. Pretty much the same end, just different means. Hair splitting? Certainly, but it's just local, not for general use.

It's pretty far fetched. We tell a player to remove their new earrings that the doctor told them not to remove for a few weeks. They somehow get an infection. The parent blames us, because we didn't give them any options, like the option of keeping the earrings in, and not playing in that night's game. Far fetched? Yes. Could this create some type of liability? Probably not, but anybody can sue anybody, for practically any reason. Would the parent win? Probably not, but the official would still need an attorney, and have to take time away from their day job to attend meetings, depositions, court proceedings, etc. Will this ever happen real life? No, but why chance it when a simple, "You can't play with earrings", will take care of the business?

And I believe that I have heard this suggested on the Forum, by Forum members outside my local area, so it's probably not just in my little corner of Connecticut.

just another ref, You're A Genius ...
 

Wow. I never considered this scenario. Now I'm even more adamant about this issue. Great? I was just starting to calm down. Or getting bored? Or both getting bored, and calming down? Now I feel like I drank one of those five hour energy drinks. I'm ready to go a few more rounds, but knowing JRutledge, from his frequent contributions to the Forum, he will never give up. What a persistent young man? He was really wearing me down. I almost gave up.

In any case, I'll see you guys later, I've got to go out for my Saturday run, then mow the lawn, and then go to church. I'll check in later, or maybe the "energy" will wear off, and I'll go to bed early tonight?

Billy, I am not twisting your words. Just stating that most people are not taking us that seriously. They are not doing things as if we are the only people that know the rules and they only take our lead. Coaches, fellow players and fans have influence over what they know about the rules in these situations. I have had situations where likely nothing was said and a coach thinks that a thrower that moved violated on a designated spot. And I do other sports like football that has many more misconceptions about basic rules than basketball and they argue all the time an NFL or NCAA rule or ruling that has no bearing on the level being officiated at the time. Sorry, we are not that damn important to their knowledge of the game.

Peace

Largely because they've heard it before from officials who are misstating the restrictions...and some that even call it wrong. I've seen it called wrong a few times in the last few years in NCAA D1 games even....perpetuating the myth to millions at a time. With every official who confirms it by saying "don't move", that is one more player that believes the wrong thing. And then, some of them become officials and call it that way because they believe it to be that way.

Why insist on doing something incorrect when it is just as easy to do it right? Why be party to the proliferation of a fallacy when you can accomplish all you need and be accurate without any more effort than just admitting that 'don't move' is simply not accurate or correct and changing to "spot throw" or something like that which doesn't imply restrictions that don't exist?

It is hard to for whoever is responsible for the teaching of the players to do it right when they have people in positions of authority directing their players incorrectly.

So once again you think all myths and misconceptions are based off of what officials tell them? Yeah right.

Peace

Maybe not the only source but why insist on being part of the problem when you can be part of the solution?

I am not insisting on anything but that no one really cares that much what we say. They have plenty influences other than us. Once again, it really does not matter what we say, they do not take us that literally as you and others are trying to make it.

And I just came from an NCAA Football meeting where if you would listen to the media, you would think hard hits are illegal in the game all because they listened to the media. Not true, but that is what players and coaches and fans think are the rules outlaw.

Peace

Some More Common Ground ...
 

Agree, but we should still set a good example.

Camron Rust: Wordsmith ...
 

Camron Rust: Where do I send the check?

Thanks - I'll go with "before the shot".

Very few people understand that they can go as far back as they want
 

Boys HS summer league game last weekend....player asks me to back the defender up to give him three feet. I told him no, but that he can back up as far as he would like. He points to a spot three feet behind him and asks if that is ok. I told him yes and he could back up all the way to the wall if he would like. The idea seemed foreign to him.

I think very few players understand this rule. Otherwise, they would back up more frequently to have a clear passing lane.

What you are debating is not about a good example or bad example. It is a personal pet peeve. That is fine, but not everyone agrees with personal pet peeves no matter how logical you might think they are.

Peace

You just made my point. There is enough misinformation out there without us adding to it or confirming it. We should be seeking to correct it.

Well then say what you feel (as I have stated before). I will continue to say what I feel and I think this is an either/or kind of statement. And you certainly have not proven to me but in some paranoid mindset that someone actually believes "Don't move" means only that they cannot move literally.

Peace

Proof ...
 

Proof:

Almost all players will stand in their little shoulder width area on designated spot throwins. A large number of players probably don't know that the movement limits on a designated spot thrownin are actually more liberal than they believe. Seldom have I observed players taking the legal step to the left, or to the right, of the designated area, to avoid defensive pressure. I believe that the reason for this is that that have been told by parents, coaches, and officials, over the years, that during a throwin, other than a run the endline throwin, they most "not move", that, "Don't move" means, literally, that they must keep their feet in their little shoulder width area. We can even go back one generation, that those parents, as players, and those coaches, as players, heard the same, "Don't move", advice from some of those that officiated their games back in the day.

I have also had dozens of experiences, like the situation that JeffM experienced (above), over the past thirty-two years, most with Catholic middle school players, but a few with high school varsity players. Yes, we can blame their parents, and coaches, for poor instruction, but those parents, and coaches, had to get the idea in their head that the players couldn't move backward from somewhere, in some cases, I'm sure, from officials stating, "Don't move".

In addition, some, not a lot, but some, players, coaches, and fans, may believe that the inbounder in a designated spot throwin situation, must maintain some type of pivot foot within that little shoulder width area. I believe that the reason for this is that they have been told that by parents, coaches, and maybe some really ignorant officials, over the years, who have probably, in turn, been influenced by officials, over the years, saying, "Don't move". After all, "Don't move", is what the coach of a second grader says to his player who has picked up his dribble and now must decide what to do next. After hearing, "Don't move", from parents, coaches, and officials, over several years, in different contexts, players will just decide to not move, literally, when advised to do so by an official, even when, by rule, they are allowed some movement to gain a legal advantage.

Proof:

There are many misperceptions, misunderstandings, and myths, regarding the rules of basketball. Where do these come from? Multiple sources, including a few, probably only a very few, from officials themselves. Who's going to clear up these myths? Officials. Who else will do it? Will all these misperceptions, misunderstandings, and myths be cleared up in my lifetime? No, but I'm going to clear up as many as I can in the short time that I have remaining here on this planet. I feel that it's my duty as a basketball official, and as a guardian of the game.

Y'all ...
 

Maybe it was your Virginian accent. I've been to Richmond, and you guys do talk funny.

Note: There really is such a thing as "Southern hospitality". I've never met so many polite, well mannered, and pleasant people, than on my weekend in Richmond. I found the same thing to be true on my vacation in North Carolina. You guys must think that Northeasterners, specifically New Englanders, are impolite oafs, when you travel north?

And obviously what you are saying to them is clearly not changing anything. And you claim "Don't move" should not be said and in your own experience nothing changes. I am not there, so you cannot blame that on me. And if you are telling people more, they must not be listening to you at all as I suggested.


Billy, I have said almost nothing most of the time and they still think that way. I never stated that I said this ever single time. Actually there is no reason to even say that on sideline throw-ins because there is no issue of the two types of throw-in options and players still behave similarily.


They watch more TV and listen to commentators much more then they ever listen to us. If they listened that well, they would listen when we tell them to stop doing all kinds of things. How many times have I seen a player get warned or is talked to about something that might start from minor situations to big situations that really have influence on the game and you think they are that taken away by this one issue or one phrase. But for some reason you actually think this is a major issue and keep acting like this is the reason players do not understand what they can do in an designated spot or other types of throw-ins. That is really funny to me. Sorry, but it is.

Peace

I'm Not The King Of The World ...
 

Neither you, alone, created this minor, hairspliting, problem. Nor can I, alone, fix this minor, hairsplitting problem. My goal is to just fix this minor, hairspliting, problem here in my little corner of Connecticut, maybe not with hard-nosed, grizzled, veterans, but certainly with every new class of officials that we train. I will leave it to others to fix this minor, hairspliting, problem all over the country, or, all over the world.

Please note that it wasn't my intent to publish this list on the Forum with the intent of "training" all Forum members. I was just asking for suggestions to add to the list for my local newsletter, that will only be read by officials in my little corner of Connecticut.

Also note that the working title of my list is, "Things Officials Should Probably Not Be Saying In A Game", not, "Things Officials Must Never Be Saying In A Game". The, "Should", and the, "Probably", leave a lot of wiggle room.

A) Mark Sr. would remember that "way back in the day," the thrower couldn't legally move, and for some time, the signal for the violation was travelling. The influence of fathers who've played under that rule has lessened, and is now infrequently coming from grandfathers. . .

B) I consistently have partners who give me a hard time because I insist that players may not participate in warm-ups while wearing jewelry. My response is usually that my partners know I do a lot of training and mentoring, and I dare not deteriorate my credibility by not doing things "by the Book," and that I'm protecting us, our Officials Assn. and the entire school system by folloowing the liability guidelines.
Last season, I had to tell a player to remove the earphones and the misic player from her trunks! - much to the surprize of my partner. . .

There's A Good Reason Why They Call It The Boob Tube ...
 

Certainly another source of many of the misperceptions, misunderstandings, and myths regarding basketball rules. I have had high school coaches who, near the end of the game, want a front court sideline throwin after they called time out with a player out of bounds on the backcourt endline.

Please Do Not Put Words In My Mouth ...
 

No. I do not think that this is a major issue.

Now, calling the endline the baseline, that's a major issue that I will be starting a new thread on very soon. Stay tuned.

Old Dirt, Very Old Dirt ...
 

I'm as old as dirt, officiating thirty-two years, and I don't remember that mechanic.

Nevadaref, Where Are You ...
 

Agree, however, how about a citation please. Also, I believe that the NFHS came out with an interpretation regarding this about fifteen years ago. I can't locate it. Anybody got that interpretation? Nevaderef?

To change or not to change
 

Short of every ref bringing his/her pocket-copy of nfhs rule book to each game and indicating exactly where these such "pseudo-violations" are allowed; there's really no way to dislodge the national [international] occurence of these un-founded admonishments. Moreover, the players and coaches will continue to practice them. But imagine the TIME it would take to enforce /educate the participants [coaches and players]. At the end of the day, the continued enforcement of these "pseudo-violations" does not create any competitive advantage for either team, although evidently they do provide good fodder for web chat.

You're going to need to reword this.

What do you mean by enforcement of pseudo violations? Are you suggesting we call the stuff coaches think is a violation?

NFHS Case Book. Rule 3-5, Situation B

The officials are on the court prior to the game observing the team warm-ups. One official notices that a member of Team A is wearing a decorative necklace.

RULING: The official should inform the team member to remove the jewelry immediately. Upon compliance, the team member may continue to warm up with his or her teammates and may start the game without penalty.

God forbid, do not tell a player they cannot wear them. They might get confused and think that means they cannot wear them at the dance after school or on the way home. After all what we say is teaching the players the rules. ;)

Peace

One gets the impression you're being intentionally obtuse, Jeff. :)

Either that or you've done a remarkable job of not understanding anyone's actual point considering how much time you've devoted to this thread.

I've seen the mechanic used recently on tv by a D1 official, but that doesn't make it right.

I think that is is normal state of being...given the number of times he insists on doing his own thing contrary to what the rules books say.

No, I just find this (as I do other things) rather silly that someone is that worried about what people do or say in this or similar situations. I put this on the scale of using the proper signal for a PC foul and someone really being upset that someone does not go through the specified steps as listed in the rulebook or Official's Manual (if used). And it is not about understanding, is is about disagreement. The point can be made over and over and that is not going to change how I feel about that point (as I do not expect to change anyone's mind as to what they do). It makes little difference to me if someone does something different or does not use a term, but to act like everyone's reaction to this phrase is the same is also silly to me, when there has been no concrete example of how someone really felt they could not move. It seems to me Billy at least is spending a lot of time trying to lecture me as to why what he feels is important. Honestly we can move on at this point, and like him I have been doing this for awhile too. I have an equal right to my opinion as what I do obviously works for me.

Peace

JetMetFan (Spell Check: Comedian) ...
 

Thanks JetMetFan. I knew that it was there somewhere. How about an NFHS annual interpretation, or maybe, it was a point of emphasis?

Not the same at all...not standard and not correct are completely different. Yes, it may not a matter all the time or even much of the time.

One misinforms, the other is just different. It certainly isn't as bad as letting a player take 3-4 steps after they end a dribble, however.

That much we get. You're a lost cause. You'll do what you want even if it isn't correct and causes problems for others because you don't want to change. Fine. Someday, you'll have a situation where something happens in a game that you have to deal with because other officials don't do it right. Of course, you'll blame them. Just remember you are one of them.
Ask the coach I T'd for insisting the player on the other team couldn't move.
Just because it works for you doesn't mean its right.

Three On A Match ...
 

Want concrete examples? Alright. Let's count them.

One.

Two.

Three.

4. I've T'd a coach (lower level game) for arguing about a thrower who "traveled."

This really explains so much.

I hear the thread lock rattling.

What does steps have to do with this rule? And if we are counting steps now, why do coaches often use, "He cannot take one and a half step....." when describing traveling? Have you ever called a travel and talked about "steps" before? They obviously got that from some place and it was not necessarily from an official.


If you want me to simply agree with you, then yes I am a lost cause. Once again, I have never had an adverse situation to saying "Don't move" to a player. I have never T'd anyone for saying that. I have had to T someone because they felt they could take the ball out anywhere along the end line and expected me to give the ball to them where they want to (go to the other side of the lane). But that is something that happened almost 10 years ago and has not been an issue since. I do not base my officiating philosophies off of one incident that is not happening all around me in some capacity. And other than this site I have never had this conversation and do not see myself having it anytime soon with the people I work with or around. And the situation I have described, I have never heard of a person complain of having a similar communication break down that I once upon a time.


Right and wrong is still subjective. It always has been and always will be. If it was not the case everyone would believe in the same God and practice their religion (within the same religion mind you) the exact same way. So why do we think this issue is any different?

Peace

With all due respect, anecdotal situations are not concrete evidence. I have had no adverse situations to what I have said and you have assumed that they are taking this comment so literally. And I have never heard an official, clinician or state person tell me to stop or not to say what you suggested. Those things would mean more to me then some people I have never met or never interacted with other than this site. Sorry, concrete would mean more if there was a directive from the National Federation or the IHSA (in my case). People do not even agree with points people lay out in Referee Magazine which is a national publication and we have to agree with you because you are going to make some list and publish it to your local group? :rolleyes:

Peace

It should. I am trying to figure out why I must agree with what is on a list. You have not explained that to me yet. ;)

Peace

Call A Locksmith ..
 

Somebody must have lost the key.

I'm not saying you have to. I'm saying you're not even understanding what it is you're disagreeing with. Or, you're intentionally misstating their opinions to make some point.

Examples ???
 

But, you didn't ask for concrete evidence, you asked for concrete examples. I gave you three concrete examples. Want more?

I don't think this thread has delved that far into insanity yet.

I understand, I just disagree with the premise. And the example you gave from Adam, happens all the time without any specifics being given to the thrower. I have had coaches think it was a travel and I was not even the administering official and I was not anywhere near enough to hear what an officials said or did not say to the thrower. It did not change the reaction of a coach that felt they could travel out of bounds on a throw-in. You really need to try that one again.

Peace

Concrete examples is more than, "I think they believe this based off of what we say" rather then there are multiple situations that have actually happened that have cause great confusion based on a two word phrase, when you are telling them what is the opposite of what they think they could do. If they ask you "Can I move?" what do you think the opposite of that means to them?

Peace

Mechanics Manuals ...
 

Not a great citation, it begs the question, what's the proper verbal signal?

We do get some proper verbiage from IAABO, but there are only about ten thousand IAABO members out there, and they're not in all fifty states, they're only in thirty-eight states.

IAABO Crew of Two Basketball Officials Manual (Page 38) Throwin E) Throwin Administration 1) Administering official shall visually sweep the floor d) signal type of throwin 1) designated spot (may use verbiage, if so, "designated spot")

JRutledge: What does the IHSA say? How about your own "Chicagoland" mechanics? I know that you guys use your own mechanics. Go anything in writing?

You seem to be misunderstanding again.
The scenario you are discussing is:
1. Official tells thrower not to move.
2. Thrower doesn't keep his pivot foot and moves within the prescribed limits.
3. Opposing coach complains.

That's not what we're discussing. We're saying that telling a player not to move is just as likely to perpetuate the rule myth as an official who calls traveling on a throw in. It's not a direct relationship between #1 and #3 above. It's a coach who has heard #1, maybe back when he was a player, and then believes it to his core (like a player or coach believing they get 2 steps without a travel).

If the subset of amateur refs like "us" [on this web forum] cannot even agree on the correctness of the "don't move" admonition, then what on God's green earth makes us even think that we can influence the larger population of coaches, players, fans, and media as to the invalidity of the "don't move" admonishment? We cannot even get concensus amongst the 10 folks who are commenting on it via this web.
But as I said earlier---there is no competitive advantage gained in either case.

Handicapped ??? Advantage ???
 

You must have missed this one:

And the four examples where coaches were charged with technical fouls.

Originally Posted by BillyMac: I had to T up a coach this past year because he wouldn't stop complaining to my partner, who, as the administering official, let a player "move" on a designated spot throwin. The coach kept saying, "But he can't move". My partner tried, and I tried, to explain the movement limitations on a designated spot throwin, but he wouldn't accept any of that, he just kept saying, "But he can't move". Eventually, I had to tell him to, "Sit down".

Originally Posted by Camron Rust: I've T'd a coach over an opponent who "moved" on a spot throw in because he was sure they couldn't "move". Where did he get that idea? From officials who tell the players and coaches "don't move". By saying "don't move" you have confused them, not informed them.

Originally Posted by JeffM: Player asks me to back the defender up to give him three feet. I told him no, but that he can back up as far as he would like. He points to a spot three feet behind him and asks if that is ok. I told him yes and he could back up all the way to the wall if he would like. The idea seemed foreign to him. I think very few players understand this rule. Otherwise, they would back up more frequently to have a clear passing lane.

And this one:

If we keep saying, "Don't move", then eventually, a lot of players, coaches, fans, and maybe a few ignorant officials, are going to think that the player can't move.

And, if you're one of those 10,000 IAABO members, in one of those thirty-eight states, and you say, "Don't move", then you need to read the IAABO Mechanics Manual.

And, as an IAABO member, if you continue to say, "Don't move", then you should hang your head in shame. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame. Shame. Shame.

OK, so this "psuedo-violation" must have had its origin somewhere in the primordial soup of in-game "coach vs. official" confrontations way back in the day. And, evidently it has morphed into a national [international] practice.

Why not just tell the player: "you can move if that helps your throw in angle"? What's the big problem with just notifying/telling them?

And if the opposing coach disagrees, show him/her in the rule book where it's allowed--or at least "not disallowed".

Keep It Simple
 

Because, "That's your designated spot", and pointing, is a lot easier to say, it's prescribed in at least one mechanics manual published by a major basketball officiating organization, and it's 100% factual, by rule.

I do agree with JRutledge that we should not be conducting a rules clinic out there on the court.

That's for your pregame captain's meeting.

Approximately 140 posts too late.

Have Fun, Let's Play Ball ...
 

Not mine: Players properly equipped, Players wearing uniforms properly, Practice good sportsmanship.

Then you are missing my point all together. Because I do not believe that what we say quickly defines or perpetuates anything. It is that simple. And trying to suggest otherwise is not really listening to what I feel about this topic. If you feel differently then so be it, but not my point of view and nothing you are going to say is going to change that feeling based off of my extensive experience with this or other issues in the rules. I have been doing this for some times and I feel most of the time players and coaches could give a damn what we say, especially when they argue when we tell them actual rules in other situations. I have given coaches T's much more over things where actual rules were explained in rather detail then two words that no one but one or two people may or may not hear.

IN MY OPINION is not my responsibility to teach a coach something that they could read in the rulebook. Maybe this does not happen in your state, but they give coaches rulebooks and casebooks at the state level (or at least they once did). So any issue they can read for themselves and find out what is actually listed. But if they actually pick one up and read it is another story. It is a running joke in our state that with Rules Meetings (now on video) that used to be attended in person and required for all schools to have a representative watch the meeting and the content discussed. It is well known that the school would send a low-level coach (often said the Freshman B coach) to those meetings or to watch the video and the varsity coaches would have no idea what was actually discussed or the content of the material even mentioned. So when POEs about slapping the back board were emphasized some years back as an example, coaches would want a T for slapping the backboard no matter how legitimate a block attempt was or would complain that we should call a GT for the slapping of the backboard as well. And that would be the first week of the season when a coach would go off about a rule that not only was discussed, but discussed much of the meeting and the rule discussed in detail. So now all of a sudden two words means so much that they not assume something based off of those words, but cannot comprehend a rule that was gone on in detail. My state has said over and over and over again that "Two hands on the ball handler is a foul." But the minute you call that handcheck, you get an argument. STOP GIVING THESE COACHES THAT MUCH CREDIT!!! I also say somethings on the first of multiple FTs "Relax guys on the first one." I will never forget someone tried to tell me that "You should not tell them that, coaches do not want them to relax." Well I have yet in all my years to have a single coach get upset with me about me saying that to convey the message that the ball is not live. And I have said in on purpose waiting for that time to come, I am still waiting. I guess I will be waiting for a coach to get upset if I happened to say, "Don't move." ;)

Peace

You youngsters - what are we gonna do with you?

Still Crazy After All These Years (Paul Simon) ...
 

And while you're waiting for that to happen, I'll still be waiting for you to respond to my questions:

They probably don't tell you what not to say, doesn't matter, although I'm pretty sure that if they did tell you what not to say, it wouldn't be not to say, "Designated spot". I'm more interested in what they, like the NFHS, and IAABO (realizing that you have your own set of mechanics independent of either), suggest what Illinois, or Chicagoland, officials should say during a designated spot throwin. There have to be some type of written mechanics guidelines. What do these say in regard to administering designated spot throwins?

I'm reminded of the time a friend of mine tried showing me Amway, and his grandson, unable to contain his excitement in the middle of the presentation, exclaimed,

"Show him the circles, Grandpa!"

This is just going in circles now. It's run its course.