|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 12:56pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The reason it is important..
I do feel the right terminolgy is important and here is why.
First "over the back", commonly misunderstood. Easy to explain, "Coach it is not over the back it is on the back", can't penalize for being taller or jumping higher. It is the contact of being on the back that is a foul. Second, moving screen, better explained as an illegal screen. It is illegal if contact is present while moving. The fact of moving does not make it illegal, there must be contact. And all contact is not illegal..... These type of terms I feel are important and with the right attitude and communication skills can be explained and understood by coaches. If you do it right, it is in no way compative, and more than often appreciated. It all comes down to your communication skills. That is why I reccomend everyone should work hard to improve them. [Edited by Self on Aug 26th, 2002 at 12:59 PM] 
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 01:03pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Self, you're correct and it's unfortunate that the NFHS didn't choose more wisely when they wrote the POE. The term "moving screen" should be used to describe a screen that is moving and nothing else. As has already been pointed out, a moving screen is not illegal. Illegal contact when a screenr is moving is a foul.
There are many terms that are not found in the rule book. As long as they accurately describe what has happened, that's fine. But a term such as "over the back," does not accurately describe a pushing foul from behind. Nor does moving screen describe illegal contact during a screen.
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 01:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Stripes,
I think the reason refs get their dander up isn't over the semantics, it's what the coaches think the rule is based on the poorly chosen phrases "over the back" and "moving screen." When a coach yells for "over the back," there is often no contact and he/she thinks it's a violation (or foul..never sure what they want called) by the mere act of reaching or jumping over the opponent (without contact) and retrieving the ball. If the term was "on the back," it would imply that there had been some contact. Coaches (and fans) hear the word "over" and think that it must be illegal to be "over" a player on a rebound as if players own the space above them. Similarly on the term "moving screen," coaches and fans think that a screen is illegal just because the screener wasn't stationary, even if there is no contact. As you know, it can be frustrating to ref a game for a coach that doesn't know the rules. How many times per game does a coach want a "moving screen" called on off-ball play when the defender completely avoids contact? Quite often in my games. I do agree that telling the coach that "there is no such thing as over the back" or "there is no such thing as a moving screen" is poor communication by the ref and just makes things worse. Just saying, "there was no contact coach" is probably much better. Z
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 01:40pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
I see a large protion of our jobs is to be communicators. We will communicate more effectively if we use words that are understood. Any ref worth his salt will know the differences in what we coomonly see and are begged for and what actually constitutes a foul. Too often, at the HS level, I see refs who just dismiss the term as non-existant and lose the chance to inform the coaches like Self and Zebraman have stated. My problem is not that we can't explain the terms or use it as a teashing moment, but that we dismiss the conversation right away because we (in our infinite wisdom) know that there is no such thing. We even go so far as to take off on newbies when they are looking for information (not in this particular thread, but in others) about the fact that "reach in" doesn't exist. I'm sure that I'm in the minority on this one, but I hoestly do not believe that the terms are bad, as long as we understand how they are used and that the fouls are called correctly.
__________________
Get it right! 1999 (2x), 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2019
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 01:57pm
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It has been my observation that people understand the following: mick
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 01:58pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Its what they believe.....
Quote:
As I run across coaches over and over again. I communicate to them correctly and explain the importance. If we all did this wouldn't that make life easier? Take the time to educate. "People forget how fast you did a job- but they remember how well you did it" (Howard W. Newton)
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 02:12pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Maybe my point wasn't clear. If the fed is going to use the term, I think we should at least acknowledge it and use it to our advantage. I think it is terrible they used the term, but we have to play with the hand dealt. I run away from the term "over the back, because it is not proper, but if they put "over the back" in as a POE this year, then I would try explain the proper call in that context as well. I would not ignore it just because there is no a foul listed as "over the back". I don't think you need to have a 5 minute conversation on these things, but I also think anytime you immediately dismiss a coach, and tell him to only address things by rule, you set your self up for issues later in the game. Every now and then we have some coaches come in a give us their "expectations" of officials (one of the only useful meetings we have). One of the top issues are refs who ignore or won't professionally respond to their questions. Again, each situation is different and you have to do this in moderation, but they feel a professional courtesy should be extended to explain things when they need it, whether they cite the correct rule or not. In their opinion, they cannot tell their kid to stop doing something, when they (the coach) doesn't know what they are doing wrong. I know I/we all fall into the us vs. them trap at times, but there are cases where they really are just trying to coach. This is tough to do when they are performing their Booby Knight act, but I think we all know when is and is not a good time to discuss things with a coach. With three man becoming more popular it make it easier for us to do that.
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 02:32pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The only problem with using comon termonology that is not in the rule book is that it doesn't have the same meaning for everyone. When you tell a coach there was no "over the back" because there was no contact you leave the coach with the impression that there is an over the back call to be made when there is contact. This just make it worse for the
next crew behind you, now the coach expects all contact on rebounds to be over the back. When he is told ther is no over the back by this crew, he now says the offcials have no consistency.
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 02:44pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Paul is correct. Many coaches, fans and players think they jumped for a rebound from behind an opponent is a foul. That's when they yell "over the back!" But this isn't a foul. This is similar to the "moving screen" term. That's why it's inappropriate for us to use this term.
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 03:18pm
|
|||
|
|||
Communication.
Communication is very important. True you should not make one statement that dismisses these terms without some explaination, but I also feel you should not use them either. Many officials use these terms to describe fouls and that is what I feel is mostly wrong. Just because a coach says "moving screen" does not mean that I am even going to comment on it. At least I will not say anything until I have an opportunity to explain "why" this does not apply. I also feel that it is not our job to get screamed at either. Sometimes officials will not talk to coaches that do not come to us in the proper spirit. Especially if they officials feels that a coach is just screaming at the top of his/her lungs and will not listen to what we have to say. If that is the case, I would never consider any official for being unprofessional for not acknowledging every complaint from a coach.
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 03:22pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 As I said, I believe I am in the minority on this one, but I have used these terms with coaches for years and will probably continue to do it. I don't feel like I am doing any future crews a disservice by doing it, either. Using terms that they are familiar with to explain calls/non calls makes everyone's life easy. Coaches that understand why "over the back" fouls are called (or not called) have never brought it up with me again and I haven't heard them do it with others. Quote:
Quote:
 ), but I disagree with this. I don't believe we are teaching them incorrectly. If they understand what a rebounding foul is after we let them know why an "over the back" foul is called, have they been taught incorrectly? Not in my book. We go to great lengths to use our signals correctly, but how many coaches could replicate them or give their proper names? Very few. Have they been taught correctly? Absolutely, but I highly doubt any of them really care what the referees terms or mechanics are. They are going to "learn" from us only what they want to. I don't see the problem in using terms they know.Please don't get the impression that this is the only set of terms that I use with coaches. More often than not, I use the word "foul" in my discussions with them--they use the terms like "over the back". I never correct them about the words they use--that is the original problem I brought up--we appear to be aloof and all-knowing. I know that I am unlikely to swing anyone over to the "dark side", but conversely, I will not be swung either. We'll have to agree to disagree.
__________________
Get it right! 1999 (2x), 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2019
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 04:01pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
It leave too much for interpretation.
Stripes, "over the back" is no more a foul than "over the side" or "over the front." The rules do not not pick the back only and say "any contact with a player's back shall be called a foul." What if you have to players make contact with each other facing each other (which happens quite often sometimes), "over the front?"
I am obviously not serious in my question, but if "over the back" discribes all rebounding fouls, then I guess the other types of contact should be ignored. Better yet, if "moving screen" is to be used, then I guess not giving a player a reasonable step is not illegal on a stationary screen (which the rulebook states is illegal). Too much gray area or interpretation. I would rather go with what the "actual" rule states, not just a POE that uses a term that you will not find in the POE or any interpretation this year and years to come. To me that is just too inconsistent and leaves to much interpretation to the individual that uses it. Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 04:05pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: It leave too much for interpretation.
Quote:
__________________
Get it right! 1999 (2x), 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2019
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 04:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
That goes without saying.
Quote:
Peace
__________________
Let us get into "Good Trouble." ----------------------------------------------------------- Charles Michael “Mick” Chambers (1947-2010)
|
|
Mon Aug 26, 2002, 05:06pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: That goes without saying.
Quote:
__________________
Get it right! 1999 (2x), 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2019
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
