"Hit?" or "Illegal use..."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I always verbalized the nature of the foul...and that is what we teach around here. As for this foul, at lot use "hit", I use "hands". As the OP post would imply "Illegal use of hands" is just too much of a mouthful.

I actually sometimes say more than "Illegal use of hands" in wording, but that is so generic and bland it does not tell any story about what actually happened. That is why I got away from rulebook terms for table presentation.

Peace

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is a supervisor issue. No one really cares that much either way.

I will say this, I do not say the rulebook term, I say what exactly happened. For example, if he was hit in the head, I say, "Hit in the head with the left arm." I will say, "Hit his right elbow before the shot." I hardly ever have to explain the type of foul or why I called a foul. Usually, a coach will argue that something else happens, but they know what I called. Learned this at a camp over 10 years ago and have been doing that ever since.

Peace

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I always verbalized the nature of the foul...and that is what we teach around here. As for this foul, at lot use "hit", I use "hands". As the OP post would imply "Illegal use of hands" is just too much of a mouthful.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I actually sometimes say more than "Illegal use of hands" in wording, but that is so generic and bland it does not tell any story about what actually happened. That is why I got away from rulebook terms for table presentation.

Peace

Since the three of us have officiated college ball I think that we can all agree that verbalization is okay at the college level, because HCs at the level are more professional. But I have always taught, that at the H.S. level, do not verbalize. Verbalizing only gives the aggrieved HC one more thing to complain about. That is my two cents.

MTD, Sr.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Since the three of us have officiated college ball I think that we can all agree that verbalization is okay at the college level, because HCs at the level are more professional. But I have always taught, that at the H.S. level, do not verbalize. Verbalizing only gives the aggrieved HC one more thing to complain about. That is my two cents.

MTD, Sr.

I was taught that way too, but you evolve when things work. I cannot think of any situation where I have verbalized (which is now all the time) the foul that I have had any major problems. Usually, the head coach says nothing at all.

Peace

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Since the three of us have officiated college ball I think that we can all agree that verbalization is okay at the college level, because HCs at the level are more professional. But I have always taught, that at the H.S. level, do not verbalize. Verbalizing only gives the aggrieved HC one more thing to complain about. That is my two cents.

MTD, Sr.

I'm not sure how it gives a HS coach something more to complain about. Since we go tableside in HS, I am closer to the benches when I report and they are more likely to hear my verbal description of the foul. It's a tool to eliminate potential questions about what his player did.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm not sure how it gives a HS coach something more to complain about. Since we go tableside in HS, I am closer to the benches when I report and they are more likely to hear my verbal description of the foul. It's a tool to eliminate potential questions about what his player did.

Exactly and why I am so specific. If I tell him, "Hit him in the head with the right arm" there is not much a coach can say what I observed.

Peace

[tcmzueck]

Wow, thanks for the numerous, prompt replies. I'll try no verbalization, and extensive verbalization, and see what I like better.

I got in that habit my first season when I heard one of our official trainers talk about how there are only five fouls and you've got to choose one of them, but yeah, I like all your explanations.

Thanks!

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tcmzueck

Wow, thanks for the numerous, prompt replies. I'll try no verbalization, and extensive verbalization, and see what I like better.

Or, verbalize / add only when there's a need. Most of the time, it's pretty obvious what you called.

[LRZ]

Some refs use a simple verb (eg, "hits") and a mimetic gesture showing where/how the foul occurred (eg, tapping their head).

[The_Rookie]

Originally Posted by Raymond

I'm not sure how it gives a HS coach something more to complain about. Since we go tableside in HS, I am closer to the benches when I report and they are more likely to hear my verbal description of the foul. It's a tool to eliminate potential questions about what his player did.

Agree 100%..been my experience as well..cuts down on questions.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I actually sometimes say more than "Illegal use of hands" in wording, but that is so generic and bland it does not tell any story about what actually happened. That is why I got away from rulebook terms for table presentation.

Peace

Yes...adding more to it can be a good idea at times, but I like to keep the base simple and short (one word). Then, when the foul needs a story, adding it isn't on top of an already long phrase.