Quote:
|
There is no such thing as a reaching foul.
|
Touché . . . I know that this might be a touchy subject coming from a coach but I didnt mean to insinuate that I really think a foul will usually be called simply for reaching in front of another player.
In practice, I do call a foul whenever the kids reach instead of moving their feet. Inevitably, they respond that they didnt even touch the man and I think they genuinely believe that they didnt even though half the time they did.
The truth is that when they reach they increase the chances of committing a foul and they are relying on an ineffective defensive tactic. I know that this is not the kind of explanation that inspires my kids to change their habits and, as a former journalist, I know that I need to sex it up to make it compelling. Thats why I teach them:
1) Any whistle that stops the clock, whether they think it is justified or not, allows the other team to rest and really impacts our system.
2) Increasing the speed of the game makes it harder to officiate because things happen faster and positioning is harder to maintain.
3) If you reach under these circumstances, you will usually be called for a foul whether it happened or not.
3 is the one I know Im fudging on because it hits home with the kids . . . they see the truth in it because they feel like they rarely commit a foul and the assertion that a foul is being called based on their reaching rather than actual contact rings true to them.
The downside is that Im exaggerating the existence of human error at the expense of the officials (certainly not the worst offense that you have to endure, but somewhat dishonest nonetheless).
The upside is that it humanizes officials I try to use this example to drill it in their heads that officials are human and make mistakes just like they do. The other huge upside is that these guys never so much as look back at a ref when they get called for fouling while reaching. They have even begun to apologize to teammates for not using their feet. This is a huge deal for a team of guys who want to debate EVERYTHING with EVERYONE - just ask their teachers about this one.
I bet you didnt think anyone had put this much thought into it. Have I dug myself out of a hole yet?
In terms of the Grinnell system . . . It is based partially on LMU but is also based on Coach Arsenaults experience as a hockey coach and a desire to increase meaningful participation for more players. By subbing units every minute or so like a hockey team, you dont have to train like a track team. LMU was unbelievably well-conditioned. The condition of my guys is much more . . . er . . . believable. Once I tried this system, I realized how much all players coast in a game to preserve their energy and how much kids can dominate superior athletes by giving 100% the whole time they are on the court.
The Grinnell system is also based on some serious number crunching and they set statistical goals that most coaches would deem unimportant or even crazy. In developing these goals, Arsenault has solicited members of the math department to study statistics and this system is rooted in academic rigor in a way that I havent heard of before. This factor is lost on many observers who consider the system half-baked.
Its a complete joy to coach, play and watch. Thanks for the rules clarifications.
David