"Hit?" or "Illegal use..."
 

Hey all,

Relatively new official here looking for some guidance.

When a player drives to the basket and there is contact with his/her arms, I often see officials use the "illegal use of the hands" mechanic, then verbalize "hit, two shots".

As far as I know there isn't a "hit" foul, nor mechanic. What is the most proper way to report this type of foul?

There's no need to verbalize the type of foul at the table. Say the color and number; give the signal for the type of foul; and then indicate what will happen next (2 shots/1-and-1/possession).

Not saying its right or wrong, but I either say "on the arm" or "here" as I make the chop motion to the arm.

Often I'll say what they actually did--"hits his elbow", "grabbed his arm", "hit to the face", etc.

That is frowned upon by some, but it works for me.

This.

No verbal needed of the type of foul at the table.

Roman Law. Do what your supervisors tell you.

We say "illegal use" here, but that's here.

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

A verbal isnt needed but doesn't hurt either.

I usually, and my main HS association mainly encourages, saying what happened. For example, for two hand hand check we are told to verbalize, "two hands."

And like others have mentioned, I usually just say what happened,"hit on the head", "body", "on the elbow" or a number of other terms that you will not find in a manual.

For someone starting out I would not worry much about this. I'd observe the behaviors of other officials who work the schedule you aspire to work, find out if your supervisor has any strong preferences, and then do what makes you comfortable.

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

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.

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.

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

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