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.

[Nagy0716]

how do u post threads?

[jdw3018]

Originally Posted by Nagy0716

how do u post threads?

With the giant button that says, "New Thread" on the main page.

[Mark Padgett]

Here's the mechanic for a "reach" as demonstrated by Larry Craig. The signal is also valid for "over the back" and anything "flagrant".

[oldschool]

BillyMac what you stated is what every good official knows. The point of the thread is that everyone makes a joke of people using the terms over the back and reach. As stated announcers, coaches, fans all use these terms. We as officials understand what they want called but some want to make these people seem ignorant because they did not say push or hold. We are talking about terminology difference only. Some officials even suggested they would ignore such comments rather than educate these coaches about the correct words. We all know the coach means there is illegal contact from behind. Was just wondering how everyone dealt with it and M&M guy gave some good thoughts. Thanks

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by oldschool

We all know the coach means there is illegal contact from behind.

I'm quite sure we ALL don't know this. I'm quite sure that some coaches (and, to be fair, some officials) really believe (or act as if they believe) that all "over the back" is a foul and all "reach" is a foul, whether or not there is illegal contact / displacement / advantage.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by oldschool

The point of the thread is that everyone makes a joke of people using the terms over the back and reach.

No, the point of the thread is to come up with quick ways to let coaches know that we, not they, call the game. That's our job. Their job is to coach, not officiate. It doesn't matter what terminology they use.

Many is the time I have said to a coach after he yelled "travel" or something similar, "We'll call the game coach". This is usually accompanied by the stop sign.

[stosh]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm quite sure we ALL don't know this. I'm quite sure that some coaches (and, to be fair, some officials) really believe (or act as if they believe) that all "over the back" is a foul and all "reach" is a foul, whether or not there is illegal contact / displacement / advantage.

And if we call "over the back" and "reach" instead of "push" or "hold" the next time a player grabs a rebound from behind without causing illegal contact, or reaches in and steal the ball from an opponent without making illegal contact, some coaches will then say we're not being consistent.

Another example is the "moving pick". No illegal contact, no foul.