Wow, Did I just see that!

chrs_schuster · #1 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 18, 2008, 07:26pm

To start, I was doing the Jv boys game. I am in my 5th year, P is his 4th. My P and I go to watch V crew. 3 older gentlemen, very experienced. Midway through the 2Q, team B goes up for rebound gets fouled by team A. The C calls a foul goes to report and says A3 "over the back" and does a diving motion/bunny hop. Table asks what was the call?...he precedes to say and do the motion 2 more times. My P and I look at each other like, "what did he say and just do!" To say the least... My P and I were a little shocked that a V ref would use that term and motion knowing there is no such call! I went in at halftime to grab my stuff and didnt have the STONES to ask him about his call. Would any of you say anything or just let it go.....

ajs8207 · #2 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 18, 2008, 07:33pm

I would let it go. Unfortunately I've seen this before. As a second year, I don't feel like I have the authority to bring it up to a veteran.

Camron Rust · #3 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 18, 2008, 08:00pm

While there is no such "call" it doesn't mean that "a" foul call was wrong...just the formal description. There are a log of old dogs out there that, despite things like this, can still call the game. I don't advocate using such terminology but I certainly wouldn't categorize the guy as an incapable ref for it eithers....just let it be.

Ignats75 · #4 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 18, 2008, 08:14pm

CAmeron,

With all due respect I strongly disagree that the mechanic is harmless. It really does a diservice to those of us trying to do things right. It also totally discredits us when we try to explain that there is no such foul as over the back.

grunewar · #5 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 18, 2008, 08:40pm

When I was "the rookie" I would ask my partner to clarify a call or rule, but would never pursue it/push it if I thought they were wrong.

However, I do concur that it makes it tougher for those of us following - "hey, he called over the back, why can't you?"

JV game I was clock op earlier this week and the ref called a foul and then used the infamous "hit to the head signal." Book person, who knows I'm a ref asked me, "What's that?"

Camron Rust · #6 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 18, 2008, 08:47pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignats75

CAmeron,

With all due respect I strongly disagree that the mechanic is harmless. It really does a diservice to those of us trying to do things right. It also totally discredits us when we try to explain that there is no such foul as over the back.

Where did I say it was harmless? The point was that some people have been around so long that you're probably not going to change them no matter what you do so. So, your effort would be better spent elsewhere.

jdw3018 · #7 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 18, 2008, 08:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignats75

CAmeron,

With all due respect I strongly disagree that the mechanic is harmless. It really does a diservice to those of us trying to do things right. It also totally discredits us when we try to explain that there is no such foul as over the back.

I don't see anywhere that Camron said it was harmless, and I don't want to speak for him, but I infer his meaning as a "you have to pick your battles" opinion. Yes, it's a wrong mechanic, yes it gives the wrong impression.

But, is it worth the potential consequences to bring it up to a guy who, 99% likely, isn't going to change that habit in the future? No...especially considering the nature some places that getting on the wrong side of the wrong veteran will doom you to C team games...

JRutledge · #8 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 18, 2008, 09:29pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignats75

CAmeron,

With all due respect I strongly disagree that the mechanic is harmless. It really does a diservice to those of us trying to do things right. It also totally discredits us when we try to explain that there is no such foul as over the back.

Camron did not say it was harmless. He was putting it into a bigger perspective or context. And I agree that it really is a bad mechanic, but we all know of many older/experienced officials that have been doing things for years and do not change. Ranting and raving about it is not going to change them or anything.

I have also stopped trying to worry about what people say that were before or after me. I just do my job and let what I say speak for itself. Another thing I think officials worry too much about.

Peace

refnrev · #9 (**permalink**) Thu Dec 18, 2008, 10:57pm

Nope. I wouldn't ask. Some people use unofficial mechanics. Doesn't for me, but he's calling the game.

Rich · #10 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 19, 2008, 12:25am

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrs_schuster

To start, I was doing the Jv boys game. I am in my 5th year, P is his 4th. My P and I go to watch V crew. 3 older gentlemen, very experienced. Midway through the 2Q, team B goes up for rebound gets fouled by team A. The C calls a foul goes to report and says A3 "over the back" and does a diving motion/bunny hop. Table asks what was the call?...he precedes to say and do the motion 2 more times. My P and I look at each other like, "what did he say and just do!" To say the least... My P and I were a little shocked that a V ref would use that term and motion knowing there is no such call! I went in at halftime to grab my stuff and didnt have the STONES to ask him about his call. Would any of you say anything or just let it go.....

Was the signal what I like to call the "creeping death" foul?

Eh, I don't really care what others signal. I signal properly, but I can't control others.

Nevadaref · #11 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 19, 2008, 02:53am

2007-09 NFHS Officials Manual page 78:
3.5.1 D
Officials should be professional in the use of the signals and should not attempt to draw attention to themselves by use of unapproved, emphatic or theatrical signals.

just another ref · #12 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 19, 2008, 02:58am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

2007-09 NFHS Officials Manual page 78:
3.5.1 D
Officials should be professional in the use of the signals and should not attempt to draw attention to themselves by use of unapproved, emphatic or theatrical signals.

My first thought on this directive is that any official that needs it will think
"They're not talking about me."

BillyMac · #13 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 19, 2008, 07:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevadaref

Theatrical signals.

Boris Karloff ???

Scrapper1 · #14 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 19, 2008, 07:52am

Quote:

Originally Posted by grunewar

"hit to the head signal." Book person, who knows I'm a ref asked me, "What's that?"

I realize that it's not an approved signal, but how could somebody not know what it means?

Somebody got hit in the head. It's one of the most common-sense signals out there because it shows what the person actually did.

Nevadaref · #15 (**permalink**) Fri Dec 19, 2008, 08:21am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I realize that it's not an approved signal, but how could somebody not know what it means?

Somebody got hit in the head. It's one of the most common-sense signals out there because it shows what the person actually did.

It's an NCAAW mechanic. Keep it at that level.