Quote:
Originally posted by Camron Rust
Quote:
Originally posted by rockyroad
I had a game the other night where the offensive post player was hooking the defender as she posted up, very effectively pinning the defender in place and getting an easy post entry pass...I called the team control foul (NCAA rules) and proceeded to clear the players and report to the table...in reporting, I gave the color and number, showed the proper hold signal, AND THEN added a hooking motion with my arm...absolutely NOT the proper signal, and not found in the book, but the coach - who was at the far end and standing there with the "What'd she do?" look - turned to the post player, told her to stop hooking, and sat down...sometimes the signals we use communicate quite clearly - even though we know they aren't the "correct" signal...
|
I wholeheartedly agree with the use of extra signals in this manner to communicate specifics. I simply oppose the use of a signal that communicates the wrong thing...that it was traveling.
|
Cameron: Totally agree w/ the use of the "hook" signal in this sitch. I have used it as well in games to convey something similar. I have also opened my hip and lifted off the floor to convey the nature of a blocking foul. However let me play the devils advocate for a minute. We are now adding a signal that is clearly not in the mechanics manual. So if it is Ok to do this, then we are opening the door for a signal to describe the action that caused every foul we call. Besides the fact that reporting a foul would start to look like a mime scene, the fact of the matter is that the "hook" signal was used to convey the action that caused the foul. Is this not like using the traveling signal to convey the action of the violation that we are talking about in this thread. I'm not trying to rile you up, just trying to provide all aspects of thought in this discussion.