Things Officials Should Probably Not Be Saying In A Game ...

[APG]

Originally Posted by JeffM

I understand that saying "on the floor" is considered unacceptable so I stopped saying it.

However, I think it quickly conveys the essential information that the foul was before the shot.

So, I have said "spot" or "designated spot" instead. However, many players don't seem to understand what that means and I've been asked by players if it was a shooting foul.

I've also used "white ball" which seems to works better.

So, what is the best way to say it? I don't think that "before the shot" would be any more acceptable than "on the floor".

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.

Originally Posted by just another ref

I personally have no problem with "on the floor." Everybody knows what it means, even if they don't know why it means what it means.

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

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 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.

Originally Posted by APG

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.

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