Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ChuckElias
Well, that all sounds great, too. So then, I guess it's all right with you if refs start using the phrase "over the back foul". Because whether you call it a "push" or "over the back", you have to call the foul. Right? Since it doesn't matter what we call things now.
|
I disagree with you. The term "over the back" suggests there is something illegal about being behind a player on a rebound or other situations that the rules do not cover. If I call a flagrant foul on someone, it does not matter what you consider it to be, the application is the same (at least to me it does not).
I called a flagrant foul on a screen during a tournament in 2005. I went up with the intentional foul signal because I did not know what else to do. I just knew the act was intentional if nothing else was called. My partner saw the same thing and ran to me and said, "You are going to eject him right?" I agreed with him and I went to the table and announced a flagrant foul, gave the umpire thumb and no one said a word. All the coach wanted to know was what his player did. The coach removed the player from the rest of the tournament. The coach apologized to the tournament director and not a peep was said to me or anyone about the call or mechanic used. I later asked a bunch of other officials as to what signal we were supposed to use and how we report it. No one seemed to know either and they said they might do the same thing I did. So if you apply the rule properly, it does not matter what you call it. Same goes for a false double foul and all the situations surrounding a false double foul. It only matters how you apply the rule properly not exactly what you call it in this situation. A flagrant foul is a flagrant foul.
Peace