|
Stripes,
I think the reason refs get their dander up isn't over the semantics, it's what the coaches think the rule is based on the poorly chosen phrases "over the back" and "moving screen." When a coach yells for "over the back," there is often no contact and he/she thinks it's a violation (or foul..never sure what they want called) by the mere act of reaching or jumping over the opponent (without contact) and retrieving the ball. If the term was "on the back," it would imply that there had been some contact. Coaches (and fans) hear the word "over" and think that it must be illegal to be "over" a player on a rebound as if players own the space above them.
Similarly on the term "moving screen," coaches and fans think that a screen is illegal just because the screener wasn't stationary, even if there is no contact. As you know, it can be frustrating to ref a game for a coach that doesn't know the rules. How many times per game does a coach want a "moving screen" called on off-ball play when the defender completely avoids contact? Quite often in my games.
I do agree that telling the coach that "there is no such thing as over the back" or "there is no such thing as a moving screen" is poor communication by the ref and just makes things worse. Just saying, "there was no contact coach" is probably much better.
Z
|