Over the Back rule has changed

[just another ref]

During the holidays I was watching a varsity girls game with some friends from a local high school. There was an exchange in the lane and the local folks got really loud yelling among other things, "Over the back! I guess you never heard of that!" etc. When the play stopped one of the officials gave a really icy stare at the group and said something that we couldn't hear. I told the group, "Y'all have worse problems than bad calls. That guy is gonna come up here and kick all your butts." I left shortly afterward before the game ended. Later I saw one of the guys at another game and he told me, "I had a talk with that referee after the game and he said that the rule had changed and that over the back was not a foul now if you don't touch them." I said that surely that was not exactly what he said. "Yep. He said over the back used to be a foul whether you touched them or not but now it isn't."
Now what? I said okay and hadn't thought about it any more.
Tonight at some elementary games (same town) an 11 year old boy came up to me: "Mr. ref, is over the back legal now?"
I'm afraid the rumor has spread. Will this be a good thing or a bad thing?

[cropduster]

From same geological area: reaching in is no longer a foul, even if there is contact. Heard that the other night while watching a game. Seems that a ref told this to fans in last couple of weeks. Now I wonder if it was the same ref. Surely not from our association, huh Mac?

Barry

[A Pennsylvania Coach]

Originally posted by just another ref
"I had a talk with that referee after the game and he said that the rule had changed and that over the back was not a foul now if you don't touch them." I said that surely that was not exactly what he said. "Yep. He said over the back used to be a foul whether you touched them or not but now it isn't."

Was it ever a foul? (MTDSr?) Surely at some point it must've been for the misconception to grow this large.

[Kevzebra]

OVER THE BACK is one of those "myths" about officiating. A 6'10" player is going to go "over the back" of a 6'4" player to get a rebound. The thing that officials have to call is the "displacement" of a legally established rebounder by player of the opposite team. Even if there is contact between the two players, it may not be a foul if the person in front was not put at a disadvantage. Total myth that just because a player can jump higher or is more aggressive going for a rebound, a foul should be called on them. I have seen situations where the player in front just stood flat footed waiting for the ball to come into their waiting arms and another player went after the rebound and snatched it from them. You gonna explain THAT one to a coach? I'd rather not!

[DJ]

Over the back has never been a foul but on the back can be a foul if it: creates an advantage or incourages rough play.