Here's an idea

[oldschool]

M&M are you saying that even though you as an official knows exactly what the coach is asking but did not use the correct terminology you would not give him his due. If this is the case maybe we need to do a better job in our rules interpretation meetings for coaches that unless you use the correct terminology we will ignore you. Point of emphasis for 08-09 to coaches!

Originally Posted by oldschool

maybe we need to do a better job in our rules interpretation meetings for coaches that unless you use the correct terminology we will ignore you.

I believe the good coaches already know that

[M&M Guy]

Originally Posted by oldschool

M&M are you saying that even though you as an official knows exactly what the coach is asking but did not use the correct terminology you would not give him his due.

No, I would not say this.

You gave the example of the official at the camp - I don't know all the details about this interaction, but perhaps all the official heard from you was, "That's over the back!", and the only answer he was able to give you as he was running by was, "There's no such thing as over the back in the rules." He would be correct, and perhaps that was his way of telling you there was no illegal contact on that play. But remember, you didn't ask about illegal contact, you asked about something that is not in the rules, and the associated misconceptions that go along with that phrase.

"Giving the coach his due" is very dependent on the specific situation. If I know a coach has a working knowledge of the rules, and is simply using the phrase, I will give them the proper explanation of the call or no-call. If I've never seen the coach before, it may depend on the level of the game as to how I react to the comment. A grade-school level coach may get the "no such call" answer, because there is a greater chance they do not know the rules, and I will not have time in that particular game to explain the rules to them.

So, do I give the coach his due? It depends.

[oldschool]

Thanks M&M that helps.

[26 Year Gap]

[TonyT]

They are constantly using these terms. During this week's games I bet if you kept track they would say this over 30 times. Also if you are in the stands you hear it all game long.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

I can't find this signal in my NFHS manual. Is it an NCAA signal?

Aren't the stripes on his jersey kind of wide, and isn't the lanyard kind of long?

[BillyMac]

Reaching in is not a foul. 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.