Resuming the stall count, "Coming in on _____"
Just a point of clarification, since some people have different habits on this. When determining where the stall count will resume, there are two numbers at issue:
1) The last number uttered ("count reached")
2) The first number the marker will say when reinitiating the stall count.
So a standard conversation, perhaps on a time-out call, would include, "I said 4, so I'm coming in on 5" and then the stall count would resume with "stalling 5."
It is peculiar to say, "I'm coming in on 5" and then begin with "stalling 6," and there is no reason to make such a mistake. It is simply poor communication of what is about to happen -- players downfield want to know what number the stall count will resume with, not what the "count reached" was.
There is perhaps some confusion from people saying, "coming in on zero" which is really just a shorthand for saying that the stall count has reset, but does not mean that "zero" will be the first number uttered. So you could treat "coming in on zero" and "coming in on one" as interchangeable, though "coming in on one" is really more accurate, but this "coming on on zero" idiom should not be used to set some kind of standard.
That is all. Make a point of announcing the number with which you'll resume the stall count, and it will reduce confusion and increase perceptions of fair play on your part.
I find that it is generally helpful for clarification to add the word "stalling" when discussing where the count will resume.
For example, if the last number uttered was 4, I will say "Coming in on stalling 5" or for a reset count "Coming in on stalling 1"
This way there is usually less confusion about what number I will be saying first.
That's a great suggestion, and what I often do as well, for the same reason.
Originally Posted by burling.christopher
Same as when people are about to ro-sham and ask "throw on three, or three and then throw?". Obviously you throw on three, but I save my laughter until they've lost.