Quote:
Originally Posted by bainsey
I took up officiating lacrosse a couple of years ago, and I worked with one of our state's top officials recently.
One of the key areas of his critique had to do with handling a certain transition, and he said it was probably best to backtrack several steps in that scenario. I was in full-on basketball mode when I replied, "Wait, I can do that?"
"Yeah..." he replied, incredulously. "Why wouldn't you?"
I couldn't explain it. Suddenly, I'm having a hard time defending the anti-backtracking mentality in basketball. I simply bought into, "it just doesn't look good," and yet, not only is backtracking acceptable in other sports, but it's a key part of soccer physical tests.
Granted, basketball is a smaller playing surface, and the only time I've fallen during a basketball game is while backtracking. However, the only time I've fallen during a soccer game was running forward. (I tripped on an unexpected field incline. The visiting coach quickly told me to watch for snipers.)
Okay vets, help me out. Does anyone have anything deeper than just, "it doesn't look good"?
|
The major difference, as Jeff notes, is the danger from falling. it's one thing to fall on a turf or grass field. It's another to trip and fall on a hardwood floor or a brick wall or the corner of a wooden bleacher.
There are players cutting in front of us all the time, even as we run forward as fast as we can. Chances of getting cut off while running backwards, more slowly and blind, are even greater.
I'ts not that it doesn't look good, that's neither true nor relevant. It's dangerous and there's not nearly enough benefit for the risk. That's why veteran officials don't do it, which is why it's the sure sign the official is either a rookie or "that guy."
Additional note: I deleted the comments about an individual official. They weren't relevant to this discussion and it quickly devolved.