Reach in foul on player
 

NFHS - What is the proper mechanics (signal)for reportng this type of foul?

You will not find a signal, because there is no such thing.

Peace

If a player "reaches in" but makes no contact, it's not a foul.
Go with "hit" signal if there is - but that ball better be loose or there's blood on the floor!!

Or displacement. Or illegal advantage.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

illegal advantage for the fouling player's team.

illegal disadvantage for the dribbler.

What is a "hit" signal?

Could you explain the "loose ball/blood on the floor comment? Are you saying that you shouldn't call a foul if a defensive player reaches in with an arm, makes illegal contact and slows down/knocks off balance/re-directs an opponent?

He obviously means NFHS signal #29.

My old interpreter used to say he would get so mad when he heard a coach yell, "That's a reach!". He'd say (to us, not to the coach), "Of course he's reaching!! How's he supposed to steal the ball without reaching for it?!?!?!"

Illegal use of hands.

At my clinic... I was told when using this signal to open the top hand like a chop because with the two fists closed it looks too much like an intentional foul signal and there is confusion.

Do any of you do that??

I prefer the look of the fists. I just keep the lower arm out straight enough and low enough, and then bring the upper arm down sideways enough that there can be no confusion. If you put your intentional foul above your head, and the other at chest height and off to one side, there shouldn;t be a problem.

No, I haven't seen it done that way, but I was told by a clinician to make the signal off to the side of my body instead of directly in front of me so it won't look like the intentional foul signal.

The question is, what did the player do wrong?

Normally when there actually is a foul on this play, it's either a block, illegal use of the hands, or a push.

Most of the time, there is no actual foul, however. Never say "reaching in" when reporting the foul, and never say "over the back" when reporting the foul.

I believe the reaching in mechanic is right next to the over the back mechanic in the rulesbook.:D

Why can't you report it as reaching in while signaling the illegal use of hands signal? Some coaches want to know exactly what the player did. To me , illegal use of hands is too general.

Because it perpetuates the myth that all "reaching in" is a foul.

The same reason you shouldn't report "over the back" while giving the pushing signal.

If the coach is watching the play, he knows what his kid did. If you have to say something, say "on the arm" or "push" or "block."

That, and what Bob says. ;)

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, hacks me off more when it comes to this avocation than hearing an official use the terms "reach-in" or "Over the Back".

"Reaching in" is as much or more ambiguous as illegal use of hands in the context of the type of foul we're talking about.

If the coach wants to know what his guy did and asks you respectfully, you can tell him exactly what he did. But "reaching in" shouldn't be your answer.

"slaped him on the wrist"

Yep. Which is right next to the signal for "that's gotta be something" and "Giving him the business down there" :D

I often use "ON the Back" with my pushing signal for "on the back" rebound fouls... I do it for two reasons, 1. I want to emphasize that on the back is a foul, over the back ain't, and 2. I have a push, while the rebounder is up in the air and all over somebody's back and shoulders to get the rebound, stating it as a push just doesn't make much sense to me (IMO).

Too much talking for my taste. I was always taught that when you report, you say the color and say and show the number but then only signal the foul using the correct mechanic, not verbally. Talking invites trouble.

It also avoids a problem where you might say push and signal hold....

If the coach wants an explanation, he can ask for one at the next opportunity.

No need to say anything or make up mechanics

Agree.

I tend to use fists, (old habits die hard) kind of like a personal foul signal in football.

Quiz: a "reach around" though, is:

a) an automatic foul
b) only polite

That is something I had heard before at clinics also, but the last clinic I attended, the clinician confirmed that you should ue the fist because that is the prescribed mechanic....if you keep it down at/below the waist there should be no reason to have it confused for the intentional foul....just don't let your hands fly all over the place and you'll be fine!;)

Iirc, the Fed changed this signal to use the fists just within the last few years. Rationale being that it's a "stronger" looking signal. As long as it's out where it should be, I don't see how it could be confused for the intentional signal (which doesn't mean that it can't happen).

I can see where it could be a problem when you say one thing and show another, but I just assume state the foul to avoid confusion and no explanation needed at the next opportunity. Just as much as talking can invite trouble, it can also alleviate some troubles. Just my preference and opinion.

This might be the funniest post I've read all year and people seem to be ignoring it. Nice....nice.:D

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Randy McCall actually gave a signal for that in the NV/Cal game Wednesday night. :eek:

Too bad I can't find a pic of Larry Craig signaling a reach. :(