"over the back" and "reaching" Do assignors really care?

[oc]

After lurking on this site for a few years and posting occasionally I have learned to hate the terms “over the back” and “reaching”. Yet many of the refs in my area use them including the presidents of the two local associations. I’ve never heard an assignor or veteran in my area say they don’t like that terminology.

Are these terms shunned by assignors in other areas or are some people on this board just too picky?

Before getting too defensive let me say that I agree--I donÂ’t like my partners using the terms. But no else around me appears to care.

[JRutledge]

It depends on the assignor. I know some assignors that focus on what thing and another assignor has another set of things he wants his officials to do. It can vary from the time you show up to the game, to the philosophy you use on the floor. I have heard some assignors not too happy with terms that are not rulebook terms and others that either does not care or they do not make a big deal out of it. I really do not think there is any universal answer to your question.

Peace

[Nevadaref]

Personally, I don't like hearing these terms used by an official either because it sends an incorrect message to the coaches, players, and fans. That incorrect message being that reaching and over-the-back are fouls.

Our job is hard enough already, and could certainly be made easier if there was more widespread understanding of the rules.

That being said, 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.
He's working the regional final this weekend, so I guess it doesn't really matter.

[Jimgolf]

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.
He's working the regional final this weekend, so I guess it doesnt really matter.

Some people study rule books. Some people study politics.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by Jimgolf

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?

[IREFU2]

My commisioner watch one of my games a week ago and one of his pet peeves is the on the back. So I my best to watch for that.

[Jurassic Referee]

From an assignor and evaluator and common-sense standpoint, it's a "nit-pick" imo. It's not something that really should influence the final decision as to whether that official should be assigned to better games or moved along the playoff path. The important thing is "what you call", not how you describe it after you've called it. Evaluation of an official usually consists of two quite separate categories; the actual calls that the official makes and the mechanics being used. Even in the mechanics part, all mechanics aren't created equal either. Positioning during the play is a heckuva lot more important than positioning during a time-out.You can teach standard mechanics like positioning, signalling, terminology, etc. You can't teach judgement, game-awareness, people skills, presence, etc.

Personally, I think that you just sit down with the official and say "hey, don't use those phrases". Explain why. The bottom line though is I've never heard a coach scream at an official for maybe saying "He was reaching". They do scream if they think you got that "reaching" foul wrong though.

Heresy maybe, but my honest opinion.

[dblref]

Originally posted by Nevadaref

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?

Ah....therein lies your problem, Nevada. You went to the wrong "George" while in the DC area. You should have listened to Mark Dexter.

[Nevadaref]

Ah, DEXTER!!!

[lrpalmer3]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
The important thing is "what you call", not how you describe it after you've called it.

Now you tell me!!!

[brandan89]

When people hollar for "over the back," it sometimes is a foul, but not called "over the back" you usually have a push. But has he has said before, its what you call that matters, not how you describe it.

[Dudly]

I personally am fond of the coach hollaring for the over the back/on the back call. I especially like it when I can turn to the coach and tell him there is no foul there, your player is getting out positioned, out played, out jumped.

[Junker]

I can't tell you if assignors care, but I do know that when I get a partner who reports fouls as "reach" and "over the back" it raises concerns about how he is calling the game. If we don't want coaches and fans using these terms, we shouldn't be using them. I stick to the terms in the book, and then if a coach asks what happened, I'll give him a better explanation.

[ditttoo]

Irregardless, "over the back", "reaching", "on the floor", are some of the all time basics. What else is out there that's classic? Whenever someone shouts out either or all of these famous "dumbspeaks" (including irregardless), we all know what they're communicating and therin lies the irony. If indeed "over the back" is not in the rule book, then why do we call it? Although, those of us "in the know" never/ever make such a fubar call, we instead call "push" but we call "push" everytime someone is "over the back" or "ON the back". Same for reaching and my all time favorite "on the floor" instead of "before the shot" or "no shot" or simply "32 red, block, spot". It can be maddening and comical all at the same time...part of why we get the big bucks, irregardless of what that means.

[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