The Official Forum - Vid Request- Miami vs Duke

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Basketball (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/)

- - Vid Request- Miami vs Duke (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/100748-vid-request-miami-vs-duke.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 978348)

"Dipped his shoulder" implies that doing so is illegal. Its not. The displacement that can occur when an offensive player dips his shoulder is what we are calling. I hear too many refs simply saying, "he dipped his shoulder" to explain a call when there was no displacement and nothing illegal.

I know of a few college and HS assingers who don't want that phrase used at all so to say that its "the only acceptable phrase we can use" is not at all accurate.

A foul does not have to be "at the rim" to be a shooting foul. All we have to say, if anything, is "no shot" or "before the shot." And when explaining to a coach you just indicate that the foul occured before the shooting motion began.

As Bob said its a phrase that perpeutates myth. Just like "over the back."

It may not be completely accurate but it's meaning to officials and coaches is obvious. One means shooting foul, the other does not.

Over the back in completely wrong as usually officials that call it make an incorrect call simply because a player jumped over an opponent without making contact (NBA rule).

Just because people know, or think they know, what it means doesnt mean it should be used.

There are more accurate phrases that are acutally rules based and are just as easily, if not more easily, understood. My point is that we should use those instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eastshire (Post 978346)

I personally find "against" to be ambiguous. It could mean the fouler "the foul was charged against the fouler." or the offended player "the foul was made against the offended player."

I included it specifically for that reason -- just like "on".

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 978349)

It may not be completely accurate but it's meaning to officials and coaches is obvious. One means shooting foul, the other does not.

If it were so obvious we wouldn't have coaches who dispute whether the player was shooting or not as much as we do. I have coaches often dispute why I'm putting a player on the line by saying "wan't he on the floor?".

I reply that he may have been on the floor but he had started the shooting motions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VaTerp (Post 978348)

Even if the offensive player dips a should and there is enough contact for a foul, it sill isn't automatically on the offensive player. The defender must be legal. If I have a defender not legal and an offensive player with a lowered shoulder, I'm calling the foul on the defense since the defender have a right to be in the spot for the shoulder to matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust (Post 978384)

Sometimes I reply with "what else do you think he was planning on doing?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by deecee (Post 978349)

Did you read the NFHS Preseason Guide for this year? There is an article in it condemning the use of "on the floor."
That's an official NFHS instructional document.

I don't personally use it but I get it's meaning and don't see it's harm. I also am not necessarily a huge fan of it, but from other things officials say that annoy me it's at the bottom of my list.

Over the back is a pet peeve, along with "coach he lowered his shoulder". These imply that these fouls exist in our vernacular.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef (Post 978386)

Sometimes I reply with "what else do you think he was planning on doing?"

I sometimes says something similar...

Coach, if you were playing and had the ball there, what would you be trying to do?