Illegal Pick

[Mark Dexter]

Twice in last night's game (Girls' Varsity) one of the officials whistled a foul and called it an "illegal pick." I tried looking this up in the book but found nothing. Anyone know what this is?

[mick]

Originally posted by Mark Dexter
Twice in last night's game (Girls' Varsity) one of the officials whistled a foul and called it an "illegal pick." I tried looking this up in the book but found nothing. Anyone know what this is?

An illegal screen.

[sharkref]

Maybe a foul to the nose???

[Hawks Coach]

New POE - you not only have to watch for hand checks, you gotta watch the fingers too.

[Danvrapp]

I'll present it to the table/coaches with a block mechanic and the words 'illegal pick.' Not once have I gotten a complaint about my mechanics or choice of words....just my judgement

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Danvrapp
I'll present it to the table/coaches with a block mechanic and the words 'illegal pick.' Not once have I gotten a complaint about my mechanics or choice of words....just my judgement

I think the concern is that you're using a term that isn't found in the rulebook. Obviously a pick is a screen but if we start using terms like this, then we aren't far from using, "hack" or "over the back." No problem with the block mechanic but if I said anything, which I usually don't, I would say "Illegal screen."

[Kelly Kinghorn]

Why the big deal with semantics? Our job, after we call a foul, is to communicate what happened to the scorer. The coaches will generally watch this so they know what was called. Using a term like "illegal pick" tells everyone what they want to know. We call rebound fouls "pushes" when a player goes "over the back" of an opponent or we use an illegal use of hands signal when an defender "reaches in" and makes illegal contact with a ballhandler.

I am not advocating using all of these common terms when we report fouls, but I think that we need to effecively communicate with the people involved in the game. If an official uses the term "reach in" at the table, is that wrong? I am not sure that it is, but if the proper #, color and signal are also used, the scorer and coach know what was called andc that is what we are trying to accomplish.

BTW, I generally do not verbalize what the foul was, I only give color, number and the signal, but that's just me.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Kelly Kinghorn
Why the big deal with semantics? Our job, after we call a foul, is to communicate what happened to the scorer. The coaches will generally watch this so they know what was called. Using a term like "illegal pick" tells everyone what they want to know. We call rebound fouls "pushes" when a player goes "over the back" of an opponent or we use an illegal use of hands signal when an defender "reaches in" and makes illegal contact with a ballhandler.

First of all, the scorer could give a fat rat's butt what the foul is. Therefore, we aren't communicating to the scorer what the foul is. In fact, most look away before you ever give the signal. We're communicating with the fans, players and coaches. That's why it's important to use the proper terminology.

I have never seen an "over the back" foul. It's not illegal for a player to go over another player's back to get a rebound. It is illegal to push a player from behind while trying to rebound the ball. It's not illegal for a player to reach in and attempt to steal a ball. It is illegal to make contact with the hand(s) when trying to make a steal.

I am not advocating using all of these common terms when we report fouls, but I think that we need to effecively communicate with the people involved in the game. If an official uses the term "reach in" at the table, is that wrong?

Yes, because it's not a foul to reach in. When you do this, you perpetuate the myth. That myth is that if a player reaches in, he has committed a foul whether contact occurs or not.

BTW, I generally do not verbalize what the foul was, I only give color, number and the signal, but that's just me.

Nor do I. But when you do, it's important to use the proper terminology. It's just as important as using the proper mechanic.

[Kelly Kinghorn]

BBRef--

I see your point, I just don't agree with them. As I said, I don't advocate using the terms at the table, but I understand why someone would and I don't have a problem with it.

I don't believe we perpetuate the myth when one uses a commonly understood term, we perpetuate the myth when a call is made that is in line with the myth--calling a foul for "reaching in" when no illegal contact is made.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Good luck with State Tournament play.

[Jeff the Ref]

Use the proper verbage and mechanics provide by the rule books. You can easily start building bad habits if you don't!