Running the end line

BillyMac

bob jenkins wrote
I tell the inbounder, and then give a signal for all to see (including the videotape)

What? Do you mean to say that some of our games are videotaped?

Nevadaref

Adam wrote
"You can run."
"Here's your spot."

"You can run" and "You can't run" are too close for a noisy environment.
You should consider one of the other options mentioned in this thread.

[deleted]

Nevadaref wrote
"You can run" and "You can't run" are too close for a noisy environment.
You should consider one of the other options mentioned in this thread.

What if you accompany the "you can run" with a visual signal that also indicates the player can indeed run?

JRutledge

BadNewsRef wrote
"You can run", "Spot". Those 2 phrases clearly convey what the thrower-in can do, and neither has ever caused confusion in any game I've worked.

Question: Doesn't the book also say that you should notify the defense?

I have never had a problem or confusion with saying "Don't move." If a player is too stupid to know what that means, then they have bigger problems. They realize there are only two options. Even if you say "Spot" that does not take away from the kind of crying that goes on for a travel if they move a foot one way or the other.

Peace

BillyMac

JRutledge wrote
"Don't move."

I agree that saying "Don't move" might not, and probably, will not, lead to any problems, but why say something that isn't true (it's positively, absolutely, not true), and perpetuates a myth?

zm1283

"On the spot", accompanied with the visual signal pointing to the floor.

"You can run", accompanied with the visual signal indicating so.

Never had a problem with either and don't think either is coaching or confusing.

Rob1968

"You're on a spot." - with appropriate point to the floor.

"You have the entire endline." - with approprate hand signal.

A few nights ago, the player's response, with a grin, "Thanks. I probably won't need it." (There was no defensive pressure.)

JRutledge

BillyMac wrote
I agree that saying "Don't move" might not, and probably, will not, lead to any problems, but why say something that isn't true (it's positively, absolutely, not true), and perpetuates a myth?

Not everything we say is literal. If that is the case, you should have a problem with anyone saying "running the end line" when no such language is used in the rulebook but very often used to describe the ability to "move" on the end line. I even had a problem years ago with a coach because he felt that it was my obligation to give his player the ball wherever he choose, not where I choose, which resulted in a T on the coach. But that is another story for another day. Never had a problem with saying "Don't move" when I rarely even say that in the first place.

And again, not sure what myth it perpetuates, because people think you travel on a throw-in. It is not assumed it is a travel because a player with the ball moves. It is thought to be a travel because they take steps with their feet. So I am not so sure what myth is perpetuated? They only want to know that they can or cannot run the end line. They do not understand the nuances of the rule to begin with.

Peace

JRutledge

Rob1968 wrote
"You're on a spot." - with appropriate point to the floor.

"You have the entire endline." - with approprate hand signal.

A few nights ago, the player's response, with a grin, "Thanks. I probably won't need it." (There was no defensive pressure.)

I usually say to a player, "You can run if you need to." And if it is clear there is no press or press coverage of any kind I sometimes add, "You may not need to." Usually gets a laugh or a smile.

Peace

Raymond

JRutledge wrote
I usually say to a player, "You can run if you need to." And if it is clear there is no press or press coverage of any kind I sometimes add, "You may not need to." Usually gets a laugh or a smile.

Peace

I say the same thing when there is no pressure.

BillyMac

JRutledge wrote
... not sure what myth it perpetuates.

... That the inbounder can't move. Because he can, in a lot of different ways, and directions. Up (jump). Down (gravity after jumping). Left (to a degree). Right (to a degree). Forward (very limited). Backward (limited to time, and setting). Move both feet in place (the travel that isn't a travel). Etc. So why say that he can't move?

Why say something that is 100% wrong, dead wrong, when several other alternatives (see above posts, lots of posts, lots of alternatives) can be easily stated that are all 100% correct.

Nevadaref

BillyMac wrote
... That the inbounder can't move. Because he can, in a lot of different ways, and directions. Up (jump). Down (gravity after jumping). Left (to a degree). Right (to a degree). Forward (very limited). Backward (limited to time, and setting). Move both feet in place (the travel that isn't a travel). Etc. So why say that he can't move?

Why say something that is 100% wrong, dead wrong, when several other alternatives (see above posts, lot of posts, lots of alternatives) can be easily stated that are 100% correct.

Because that is Rut and you can't him otherwise.

Nevadaref

AremRed wrote
What if you accompany the "you can run" with a visual signal that also indicates the player can indeed run?

After thinking about it because of this thread, I've refined my verbiage to "You have the endline" and "Hold this spot."

I also use hand signals.

I just don't want to end up in a situation in which the player was confused by my words.

« Previous Page