"Over The Back"

[BBrules]

I haven't seen that 'mechanic' yet, but I did see a "gator chomp" (like Florida Gators fans do) last week in a game I was watching. Not sure what it was supposed to mean. The offending action was blocked from my view.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BBrules

I haven't seen that 'mechanic' yet, but I did see a "gator chomp" (like Florida Gators fans do) last week in a game I was watching. Not sure what it was supposed to mean. The offending action was blocked from my view.

It usually means that "the ball was blocked; it's not a foul."

Don't use it.

[BBrules]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It usually means that "the ball was blocked; it's not a foul."

Don't use it.

Thank you for the clarification, Bob, and I won't!

[justacoach]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It usually means that "the ball was blocked; it's not a foul."

Don't use it.

When I have a partner who is in the habit of using that signal, or the 'foul tip' mechanic in a shooting situation, I routinely reach across and call a shooting foul. Cures them pretty quick.

[stir22]

or the 'foul tip' mechanic in a shooting situation,

what is this?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by BBrules

I haven't seen that 'mechanic' yet, but I did see a "gator chomp" (like Florida Gators fans do) last week in a game I was watching. Not sure what it was supposed to mean. The offending action was blocked from my view.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

It usually means that "the ball was blocked; it's not a foul."

Don't use it.

I am not sure I totally agree with that. For one the chop signal is for clarification and to give information. The "over the back" signal is to call something based on something that is not a rule. We used to use the "kicking" signal and it was not approved (even the "palming" signal was used and not approved at one time). And I know officials that use the "tip" signal for multiple purposes to give information. I am not advocating using this signal, but just saying that we do a lot of things that are not approved and no one gets upset over the situation.

To be clear I would not use that signal during most live ball or right as a player is being defended, but I have used it before. Never been told not to or it was wrong.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I am not sure I totally agree with that. For one the chop signal is for clarification and to give information. The "over the back" signal is to call something based on something that is not a rule. We used to use the "kicking" signal and it was not approved (even the "palming" signal was used and not approved at one time). And I know officials that use the "tip" signal for multiple purposes to give information. I am not advocating using this signal, but just saying that we do a lot of things that are not approved and no one gets upset over the situation.

To be clear I would not use that signal during most live ball or right as a player is being defended, but I have used it before. Never been told not to or it was wrong.

Peace

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.

[Zoochy]

Many years ago I was watching a lower level Girls game and while reporting/describing the foul the official said "Bumping from behind" while giving a pelvic thrusting motion.

[Bad Zebra]

Originally Posted by Zoochy

...the official said "Bumping from behind" while giving a pelvic thrusting motion.

Mandatory jail sentence now.

The OTB mechanic still makes me cringe whenever I see it. Fortunately, I've only seen it at the sub-varsity level and I'll make it a point to talk that official if I can after the game.

[JRutledge]

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.

This is why I say exactly what the player did when I go to the table instead of the usual "push" or "handcheck."

Peace

[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?

[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".

[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 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.