Wow, Did I just see that!
 

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.....:eek:

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.

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.

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.

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?" :o

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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."

Or Peter Boyle ???
 

Boris Karloff ???

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