"Over The Back"

[GoodwillRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I've seen big time NCAA officials put both arms straight up and bring them forward/down to show that a player was vertical but brought the arms forward/down and fouled the shooter. It's a mechanic that may not be approved but communicates the foul far better than a hit/hack mechanic ever could.

Same with the hit to the head (in an NFHS game). If I hit the head, nobody ever questions me. If I use the usual hit/hack mechanic, I'm just as likely to hear from a coach that "he didn't hit him on the arm."

I try to use proper mechanics when they fit, but I'm not a slave to them 100% of the time, either.

I try to think of these unofficial mechanics as "tool of communication."

[bainsey]

Why do you suppose these people advance when they clearly get the mechanics wrong, and perpetuate myths with their choice of words?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Why do you suppose these people advance when they clearly get the mechanics wrong, and perpetuate myths with their choice of words?

Because in the big picture it doesn't matter as much as many officials think it does (or would like it to).

I had a player fumble a ball he was receiving while taking a couple of steps in transition last night. When the coach said something about a travel, I gave a fumble signal and the complaining stopped. Bad Rich. Bad, bad Rich.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I've seen major conference men's D-I officials make the creeping death signal. I laugh, sure, but they keep on keeping on. It's not that important, except to other officials.

It's obviously not a career killer for some, but it still perpetuates a myth. Sort of like the traveling signal on a throwin spot violation.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by GoodwillRef

I try to think of these unofficial mechanics as "tool of communication."

Even if these "unofficial mechanics" perpetuate myths?

From the Mythbusters file:

Over the back is not a foul. There must be illegal 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.

With rare exceptions, stick to the book. Call it a push. Don't call it, or signal it, "Over the back".

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

It's obviously not a career killer for some, but it still perpetuates a myth. Sort of like the traveling signal on a throwin spot violation.

That is the part that bugs me. You can communicate with coaches like in Rich's example, but that differs from giving a signal at the table. Guys can be 'over the back' all night long, but if there isn't any contact, it's nothing. Maybe we need a 'cherry picking' mechanic.

[mj]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

I've seen big time NCAA officials put both arms straight up and bring them forward/down to show that a player was vertical but brought the arms forward/down and fouled the shooter. It's a mechanic that may not be approved but communicates the foul far better than a hit/hack mechanic ever could.

Same with the hit to the head (in an NFHS game). If I hit the head, nobody ever questions me. If I use the usual hit/hack mechanic, I'm just as likely to hear from a coach that "he didn't hit him on the arm."

I try to use proper mechanics when they fit, but I'm not a slave to them 100% of the time, either.

When I report the similar foul listed above, I verbalize 'hit to the head' or 'wasn't straight up' while giving the usual hit/hack mechanic. Oh crap, we're not supposed to verbalize the foul when reporting.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

Maybe we need a 'cherry picking' mechanic.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mj

'Hit to the head'.

I know more about the Latvian Gambit than I know about NCAA mechanics, but isn't this a proper mechanic for womens games.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by mj

'Wasn't straight up'.

Sounds too much like the infamous Boris Karloff mechanic (See image above).

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Because in the big picture it doesn't matter as much as many officials think it does (or would like it to).

+1

It's easy as hell to tweak your officials' mechanics if you think they might be causing a problem. If the mechanics aren't causing a problem, .....

It's a helluva lot harder to tweak their play calling, judgment, etc.

The most important mechanic by far is proper positioning imo. Signals are meant to convey information. If they do that, fine with me.

[Da Official]

Originally Posted by richmsn

i've seen big time ncaa officials put both arms straight up and bring them forward/down to show that a player was vertical but brought the arms forward/down and fouled the shooter. It's a mechanic that may not be approved but communicates the foul far better than a hit/hack mechanic ever could.

Same with the hit to the head (in an nfhs game). If i hit the head, nobody ever questions me. If i use the usual hit/hack mechanic, i'm just as likely to hear from a coach that "he didn't hit him on the arm."

i try to use proper mechanics when they fit, but i'm not a slave to them 100% of the time, either.

+1

[Adam]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Because in the big picture it doesn't matter as much as many officials think it does (or would like it to).

I had a player fumble a ball he was receiving while taking a couple of steps in transition last night. When the coach said something about a travel, I gave a fumble signal and the complaining stopped. Bad Rich. Bad, bad Rich.

I've done the same thing, in the same situation, with the same effect.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Because in the big picture it doesn't matter as much as many officials think it does (or would like it to).

Must be. All I know is, as hard it the mechanics are pushed on the newbies, you'd have to hold the vets to the same standard.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Must be. All I know is, as hard it the mechanics are pushed on the newbies, you'd have to hold the vets to the same standard.

Another thing to think about is the fact that the vets have (typically) learned when it's helpful to deviate from the standard mechanics. It may seem counterintuitive, but the only way to be effective when deviating is to have the proper mechanics down pat.

It's like calling out of your area? Are there times when it's appropriate and helpful? Sure, but the newer officials aren't as likely to understand the difference, and are more likely to see it as a license to ball watch.