Use of "Concise Verbage"
 

When you'all observe the following violations by A1 (ball handler), which I will use the vernacular terminology for: "carrying", "double dribbled".

When you announce after popping your whistle and holding/extending up your open hand--do you'all announce it as "carrying" or "double dribble" whichever the case may be--or do you announce it simply as "illegal dribble" ? And then move on without explaining to an inquiring coach or player the precise violation?

For myself, I have this season been making a point to announce "illegal dribble", then move on--coaches and players tend to discern what the exact violation was [and dare I say fans are clueless] . I have come to believe that announcing such violations simply as "illegal dribble" is the most concise verbage despite it being non-vernacular.

Just curious here what other colleagues are doing/saying?:)

IMO the signal is what is most important. The verbiage is just a backup. In a loud gym it might even be inaudible.

That said, I like to stick to one word whenever possible:

"Carry", "Illegal" (sometimes I say "double"), "Travel," etc.

For foul reporting, most are already one word, (two for "hand check"), but for illegal use of the hands I just say, "hit."

Brevity is your friend.

Considering you are describing 2 different actions for which we have 2 different mechanics to convey the specificity of the violation. I personally use "carrying" and "double dribble". There are many ways that the dribble can end, and yes the resulting violation is an illegal dribble, but we have mechanics to better describe what was done.

See 4-15.

I give the signal. That's it.

"Carry"

"Illegal Dribble"

Me too.

When 2 hands are involved in the violation, I give the "illegal dribble" signal.

If the ball comes to rest in one hand, I give the "carry" signal.

For some reason, I don't verbalize "illegal dribble", but I do verbalize "carry".

No need to verbalize as long as your using the appropriate mechanics. If a coach asks about it and your in an indulgent mood, use the correct terminology.

Old Dog, Old Tricks ...
 

I'm similar, but I do verbalize an illegal dribble violation, but I state, "Double dribble", instead of the more correct, "Illegal dribble". I know that it's not the correct verbiage, (IAABO mechanics don't require any verbiage for violations) but old habits die hard.

+1

I'm ok with concise verbiage. Or just straight up signals.

However if your goal is to keep the game moving as smoothly as possible your going to need to judge it situation on its own merits. Sometimes less is not less.

Just speaking purely game mangement: If I know (based on experience, body language, environment, whatever) that coach is confused about the call or even ready to debate it. Signalling the call and relaying to either the table or the coach some information that may clarify or improve the situation before they want a conversation/explanation/debate can save you time in the long run. Sometimes 2-3 words now can save you a discussion later.

Ie. If you signal illegal dribble, but the coach was screened from the play and is asking the player "What did you do" you know if they don't get a satisfactory answer from the player as they come up the sideline they are going to ask "What did they do". If your only signal is illegal dribble as you change positions, and they have to ask your partner. Your partner may or may not have enough information to answer or keep things moving on so now they are in a longer conversation then they need and you still may need to go back and have a conversation with the coach about it the next available situation. Signalling the illegal dribble then voicing, "carry/ double dribble" or even turing to the coach and saying "she stalled it on her hip"; not in every situation but in ones you can recognized can go a long way to saving conversations later. Not saying it should be the rule of thumb, more the art of managing as you gather more experience. Sometimes less talk leads to more talk.

Amazing and thorough consideration you all have given to this issue.
"sometimes less talk sometimes leads to more talk"....me like.
"coach may have been screened from the play, and will ask you what happened"...me like.
lol @ "if you happen to be in an indulgent mood"...ah hah
"give the signal and that's it"...whoa even more brevity than ever.

I am always open to fine-tuning my on court behaviour. You'all have mos definitely provided me with ideas for further consideration, thanky!

While I'm generally into concise verbiage (e.g. "endline"), I still go with "double dribble" and "carry." We were taught they tried the illegal dribble signal for carries some time ago, but it got too confusing for players and coaches. I usually only speak "carry," as illegal dribbles typically speak for themselves.

"Illegal use" for those type of fouls. We don't have to speak that part when reporting.

The carry signal should be all the information a coach needs to know what the player did. I suppose there are times when the signal alone doesn't convey all the information, as the coach may not agree, but I'd say most of the time I didn't have to explain my carry signal/call.

As for the double dribble signal, since there are a few different ways that violation can occur, some more communication may be necessary.

I have no problem giving additional information if I'm asked. The rare time I have an illegal dribble, though -- of those maybe 10% require further explanation.