The Official Forum - "over the back" and "reaching" Do assignors really care?

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

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

- - "over the back" and "reaching" Do assignors really care? (https://forum.officiating.com/basketball/18496-over-back-reaching-do-assignors-really-care.html)

Best thing ever written about OTB

This is still a classic:

http://washingtonpreps.rivals.com/co...asp?CID=259302

written by our own BktBallRef. I carry 10 copies of this article in my bag, just haven't had the cajones yet to hand one to a coach. Someday I will. It's a thing of beauty. And Tony, I'm still anxiously awaiting the Traveling article...

Quote:

Originally posted by totalnewbie
I know there are no fouls called "reaching" and "over the back" but the phrases themselves can describe illegal contact.

(Disclaimer 1: please dont tell me, I already know, I wont use those terms and I will follow the approved terms and signals from the book, I understand that).

"Over the back" is just a push as a result of a player violating verticality and making contact that disadvantaged the player in front of him. Now that is pretty difficult to say. "Over the back" is easier. "Push" is easier still. But "push" described a whole host of conduct. "Over the back" describes this specific act that is a push. The problem with "over the back" is the mis-interpretation taht simply going over someones back without contact or disadvantage or violating verticality is a violation/foul. But that doesnt mean we as officials cant use the term to describe a particular type of push.

Similarly, "reaching in" is illegal use of the hands with contact that caused a disadvantage to the dribbler or advantage to the defender. But "reaching" describes a particular type of illegal use of hands. Again, as with "over the back" the problem is that coaches dont understand what it means.

I dont think we should stop using a phrase that has meaning just because coaches dont understand it. Heck, we'd have to throw out 1/2 of the normal rules if that was our standard :)

I can also think of a time when you might want to say "reach" (though not over the back) instead of "illegal use of hands".

(Disclaimer 2: I understand and agree that we should only signal and say teh official calls and signals).

Its not like these arent foul situations. They are (when defined correctly, not as coaches often define them). We are just using colloquial phrases to describe them.

(Disclaimer 3: Again, I agree that when calling and signaling the foul in a game we should only use approved signals and phrases).

My only point is that those terms can be useful for discussion, so long as their meaning is understood correctly (as with anything else). Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Clark

Unfortunately, to most non-officials, these terms have meanings that are inaccurate or flat out wrong. I know several people who believe that the act of "reaching" for the ball is it self a foul, not based on contact. Likewise for over-the-back.

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimgolf

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref
... I went and watched the president of my local association work a couple of games last week and three times he said "on the reach" when he called a foul on a player. :rolleyes:
He's working the regional final this weekend, so I guess it doesnt really matter.

Some people study rule books. Some people study politics.

Guess so, since he just beat me in our annual election, too. The funny thing is that I went to Georgetown and majored in American government. Perhaps I should ask for my money back?

Guess that explains it all . . . :p

Might I suggest GW's Graduate School of Political Management?

[Edited by Mark Dexter on Feb 17th, 2005 at 07:44 PM]

Camron

I agree with you that lots of people think those two things are fouls when they are not.

But lots of people are wrong about lots of stuff. Traveling in the NBA for example. Have you ever actually read that rule? What the heck is a "beat?" Looks like after all these years that Magic and Patric Ewing weren't traveling on every shot after all :)

I just dont think we have to discard a term just because many people dont understand it.

They dont understand when a ball is live or dead either. They think the horn summons them into a game. They think its ok to put a foot on the endline when playing defense. They think fouling at the end of the game isnt an intentional foul when they wrap up the other player without playing the ball.

I still find over the back and reaching to be descriptive terms to use when discussing certain situations. I also try to educate people who use those terms to make sure they understand what is and is not a foul.

Again, I understand that we must only use offical phrases and signals when actually calling a game.

Clark

By the way, that article is great. I am going to print out a couple of copies and put them in my bag :)

I'm starting a local league tonite (because the season is essentially over and I just dont want to stop :) ) that runs for six weeks. I guarantee I will hear an "over the back".

Clark

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

[/B]

Might I suggest GW's Graduate School of Politial Management? [/B][/QUOTE]Might I suggest GW's Graduate School of Spelling?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Might I suggest GW's Graduate School of Politial Management? [/B]

Might I suggest GW's Graduate School of Spelling? [/B][/QUOTE]

I think that is totally *irregardless*.
mick

Quote:

Originally posted by mick

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Might I suggest GW's Graduate School of Politial Management?

Might I suggest GW's Graduate School of Spelling? [/B]

I think that is totally *irregardless*.
mick [/B][/QUOTE]Unrelevant too, unless you are actually preparing for a career in managing polits.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Might I suggest GW's Graduate School of Politial Management? [/B]

Might I suggest GW's Graduate School of Spelling? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yeah, I think that should be Polishial Management, IOO managing Polish people.

btw, did you all hear the horrible news out of the hockey world yesterday? Seems the Polish National Hockey team were involved in a terrible accident...they all drowned during spring training...

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimgolf

Quote:

Originally posted by Nevadaref
... I went and watched the president of my local association work a couple of games last week and three times he said "on the reach" when he called a foul on a player. :rolleyes:
He's working the regional final this weekend, so I guess it doesnt really matter.

Some people study rule books. Some people study politics.

I think coaches and fans used Cliff's Notes for the rules.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan_ref

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Might I suggest GW's Graduate School of Politial Management?

Might I suggest GW's Graduate School of Spelling? [/B]

Yeah, I think that should be Polishial Management, IOO managing Polish people.

btw, did you all hear the horrible news out of the hockey world yesterday? Seems the Polish National Hockey team were involved in a terrible accident...they all drowned during spring training... [/B][/QUOTE]

Me fail English? That's unpossible!

Quote:

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark Dexter

Might I suggest GW's Graduate School of Politial Management? [/B]

Might I suggest GW's Graduate School of Spelling? [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, I guess GW won't be making the "Top 50" *this* year, either.

Cliff Notes? This makes an assumption that the coaches actually at least read something regarding the rules......curious concept though.