OTB and Reaching

[KCRef]

My partner last night called an "over the back". I just had to smile.

Also, during a timeout, he told me, "These guys just don't get it. If they reach, I'm gonna call it. Even if there is no contact." I couldn't believe I heard that from an official. I just said, "I wouldn't call it that way." The conversation ended there.

I just thought you guys would get a kick out if that.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by KCRef

My partner last night called an "over the back". I just had to smile.

Also, during a timeout, he told me, "These guys just don't get it. If they reach, I'm gonna call it. Even if there is no contact." I couldn't believe I heard that from an official. I just said, "I wouldn't call it that way." The conversation ended there.

I just thought you guys would get a kick out if that.

Beautiful. Everybody knows that reaching is a foul. Go to any gym in America and you'll hear it.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally Posted by socalreff

Beautiful. Everybody knows that reaching is a foul. Go to any gym in America and you'll hear it.

Actually, it is, if it includes illegal contact.

[socalreff]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

Actually, it is, if it includes illegal contact.

Ah, yes. However, I wouldn't call it reaching. When I change a light bulb, that's reaching. When I call out of my primary, that's reaching.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

Actually, it is, if it includes illegal contact.

Actually, it's not. The contact is illegal, not reaching out for the ball. There's no "reaching" signal. There's no "reaching" definition in Rule 4. I realize you were trying to be cute and clever, but your comment is simply false and perpetuates the myth that others have been talking about.

[OHBBREF]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

Actually, it's not. The contact is illegal, not reaching out for the ball. There's no "reaching" signal. There's no "reaching" definition in Rule 4. I realize you were trying to be cute and clever, but your comment is simply false and perpetuates the myth that others have been talking about.

obviously disconcetion -

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by Whistles & Stripes

Actually, it is, if it includes illegal contact.

W&S:

I know. I just love the look on a coach's face when I tell him that it is not illegal to reach in, it is only an infraction of the rules, when illegal contact occurs. They do not know what to say.

MTD, Sr.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by KCRef

My partner last night called an "over the back". I just had to smile.

Also, during a timeout, he told me, "These guys just don't get it. If they reach, I'm gonna call it. Even if there is no contact." I couldn't believe I heard that from an official. I just said, "I wouldn't call it that way." The conversation ended there.

I just thought you guys would get a kick out if that.

We are not the ones who should have gotten the kick.

[BillyMac]

If a blind screen is set on a stationary defender, the defender must be given one normal step to change direction and attempt to avoid contact. If a screen is set on a moving defender, the defender gets a minimum of one step and a maximum of two steps, depending on the speed and distance of the defender.

The hand is considered part of the ball when the hand is in contact with the ball. This includes holding, dribbling, passing, or even during a shot attempt. Striking a ball handler or a shooter on that player's hand that is incidental to an attempt to play the ball is not a foul, no matter how loud it sounds or how much it hurts.

Reaching in is not a foul. The term is nowhere to be found in any rulebook. There must be contact to have a foul. The mere act of reaching in, by itself, is nothing. If contact does occur, it’s either a holding foul or an illegal use of hands foul. When a player, in order to stop the clock, does not make a legitimate play for the ball, holds, pushes or grabs away from the ball, or uses undue roughness, the foul is an intentional foul.

Over the back is not a foul. The term is nowhere to be found in any rulebook. There must be contact to have a foul. A taller player may often be able to get a rebound over a shorter player, even if the shorter player has good rebounding position. If the shorter player is displaced, then a pushing foul must be called. A rebounding player, with an inside position, while boxing out, is not allowed to push back or displace an opponent, which is a pushing foul.

A defensive player does not have to remain stationary to take a charge. A defender may turn away or duck to absorb contact, provided he or she has already established legal guarding position, which is both feet on the playing court and facing the opponent. The defender can always move backwards or sideways to maintain a legal guarding position and may even have one or both feet off the playing court when contact occurs. That player may legally rise vertically. If the defender is moving forward, then the contact is caused by the defender, which is a blocking foul.

The mere fact that contact occurs does not constitute a foul. Incidental contact is contact with an opponent which is permitted and does not constitute a foul. Contact, which occurs unintentionally in an effort by an opponent to reach a loose ball, or contact which may result when opponents are in equally favorable positions to perform normal defensive or offensive moves, should not be considered illegal, even though the contact may be severe. Contact which does not hinder an opponent from participating in normal defensive or offensive movements should be considered incidental.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Reaching in is not a foul. The term is nowhere to be found in any rulebook. There must be contact to have a foul. The mere act of reaching in, by itself, is nothing. If contact does occur, it’s either a holding foul or an illegal use of hands foul. When a player, in order to stop the clock, does not make a legitimate play for the ball, holds, pushes or grabs away from the ball, or uses undue roughness, the foul is an intentional foul.

You may need to revise your document a bit.

NFHS 4-24-2: It is legal use of hands to reach to block or slap the ball controlled by a dribbler or a player throwing for goal or a player holding it and accidentally hitting the hand of the opponent when it is in contact with the ball.

The term "reaching" most definitely is found in the NFHS rules book. And it is specifically deemed legal.

[MJT]

One of the dumbest things I heard from a fellow official is his discussion of charge calls. This guy got picked up this year as a 3rd man with a regular varsity crew. Early in the game, he had charge call and then about 3 minutes later I was the lead and he was the trail and we had a pass and crash just after he passed the FT line coming down just inside the lane. He had the pushing foul after the pass, as I watched the pass. We had talked about the pass and crash in our pregame. Just before we were to take the floor for the 2nd half I mentioned how it was a good call he made on the play. He said "well after I call a charge on one end, if there is any contact on the other end I'm giong to call a charge even if it not close." The 3rd official we were working with was kind of new to officiating and said "why, to even it up?" He responded "darn right!" Before I could open my mouth we had to go back on the floor. I was fuming the whole 2nd half just waiting to discuss it after the game. Right after the game, I had to go pick up my daughter as the game went to to 2-OT's and could not discuss it. This was the last game of the year and it still irritates me that we could not talk about it and that the other official probably feels that is how it should be called. What a horrible philosophy have in calling a game.

So what is the worst or dumbest thing have heard come out of fellow officials mouth you worked with?

[BoomerSooner]

One of the dumbest/worst things I've heard in a long time from a coach that used to be an official was that any time a player behind one of his players got a rebound it should clearly be an "over-the-back" foul. Didn't matter if it was a 6'6" guy rebounding over a 5'8" player, it is automatically a foul. I loved the fact that his interpretation didn't seem to hold as much weight if it was one of his guys getting the rebound.

[CLAY]

After watching the NCAA tournament and the amount of charges and reaches with contact to steal the ball and you get no calls. I can't wait for the high school season to begin and deal with this.

With the amount of steals in this years tournament I have seen more mugging going on and no calls. Anyone agree or disagree?

This year's tournament has had way to much contact.........

[Junker]

The dumbest thing I'ver heard? SHOULD we go out for a beer after the game?

[Damien]

Originally Posted by Junker

The dumbest thing I'ver heard? SHOULD we go out for a beer after the game?

Or while drinking said beer: "Would you like another?"