These guys must have called an excellent game

[mick]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Doing a high-profile BV semi a few years ago. Mid-3Q the game is obviously becoming something to write home about. Players from other gym coming over to watch, players for next semi all there to watch. Tonnes of parents.

FIBA game ?

[BillyMac]

From Mplagrow: "OVER THE BACK. He even reported it with what I disaffectionately call the "Frankenstein" signal."

Mplagrow: Great quote. This is the first time I've heard the term "Frankenstein Signal". We certainly don't see this on the Official NFHS Signals Chart in our NFHS Rule Book. Did you come up with this term?

[Texas Aggie]

"There is NO SUCH THING as over the back."

I wouldn't say this, because there IS such a thing as "over the back." No, its not defined in the rules, but, like a "reach", it is (or at least can be) a descriptive term. To me, the best thing to say is what you said; "clean rebound, no contact."

[REFVA]

I went to watch a quarter final state game. The officials were from richmond Va. I felt that it was the best game I ever saw officiated as an official or of 20 years coaching.. I truly enjoyed the game the way it was managed, communicated, mechanically sound and the coaches even expressed that as well. I also didn't see too many over the back(which doesn't exist anywhere in the rule book,) IMO LOL 1/2 half fouls 5 to 6 and 2nd half 7 to 6 over all a fairly even game..

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I wouldn't say this, because there IS such a thing as "over the back." No, its not defined in the rules, but, like a "reach", it is (or at least can be) a descriptive term. To me, the best thing to say is what you said; "clean rebound, no contact."

It is a bad descriptive term and should not be used. It is not illegal to be on someone's back any more than it is to be on their side or their front. A reach is not ever illegal because you could never have a steal without someone "reaching" at some point. If you want to use that terminology that is your right to do so, but these terms do not describe the rules. I do not talk to players or coaches that use those terms because there is nothing inherently illegal about these "descriptions."

Peace

[mplagrow]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I wouldn't say this, because there IS such a thing as "over the back." No, its not defined in the rules, but, like a "reach", it is (or at least can be) a descriptive term. To me, the best thing to say is what you said; "clean rebound, no contact."

I wouldn't say this (out loud) anymore, but I disagree with you. There is no foul or violation for over the back. The problem with using it as a descriptive term is this: many ignorant coaches, players, and fans believe that if you attempt to rebound from behind it is automatically an 'over the back' foul. Just like many believe that if you reach in for the ball, it's a 'reaching' foul. Have you ever heard a coach yell, "Come on, he's REACHING IN!" Of course he's reaching in, he's playing defense! But the coach wants a foul just for that act. These are descriptive terms to be avoided. I don't call a 'reaching' foul, I call a foul for contact on the arm. I don't call 'over the back,' I call a pushing foul.

I do agree with you that I would no longer tell a player, "There's no such thing as over the back." I would use your same statement about the clean rebound.

[mplagrow]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

From Mplagrow: "OVER THE BACK. He even reported it with what I disaffectionately call the "Frankenstein" signal."

Mplagrow: Great quote. This is the first time I've heard the term "Frankenstein Signal". We certainly don't see this on the Official NFHS Signals Chart in our NFHS Rule Book. Did you come up with this term?

I think I've heard it thrown around the forum. Arms straight forward at a 60 degree angle, usually with hands pointed down.