Icredible! If they're making up "over-the-back" you have to wonder what else they are coming up with isn't in the book. Frankly this kind of officiating is downright embarrassing.

Bravo. Common sense, please. The point is COMMUNICATION.

If I have a player go, ahem, over the back on someone and there is contact, and I blow my whistle and announce "Red 14, push", the player is likely to say "WHAT? I didn't push him". If the coach asks what the foul is, and I say "push", he's likely to give the same response. But if I say "you went over his back", he will get it.

Sure, when I go to report, it's "Red 14, push", but only because I like to keep my foul report short and sweet. Otherwise, the better I can communicate, the better.

Whether or not "over the back" is in the rulebook is silly. The call is what's most important. Making sure everyone knows it and understands it, runs a close second. Whether or not the exact words as I said it appear in the rulebook does not even rank.

I'm not saying we don't need to be knowledgable about the rulebook, but do we really need to split this hair?

The notion that this is some sort of "threat" to proper adminstration of the game is overstating things. I've never had an evaluator say "Gee, that was a great call on that rebounding foul, but "over the back" isn't in the rulebook. I don't think you can do Varsity anymore."

And if an evaluator decides that even though I make great calls, am a good partner, and have good game management, that I'm a crappy official because I don't blow my whistle and announce "Red 14, illegal use of the hands", well stop the bloody planet. I wanna get off.

Hmmm, think I'll go out and buy a flame-resistant suit...:D

The overall point is that "over the back" is not a foul. You can out jump an opponent from behind and a coach will cry for "over the back." So the use of language is very important, because the term is based on a rulebook myth.

But if you want to be technical, I think you should not use any verbage at the table. You should just signal the infraction and not verbalize it. But that is the way I came up and was taught.

Peace

True, very true. But in the end, the point we want to make to the coach is that if there's no contact, there's no foul. What's the point of saying "that isn't in the rulebook" when all we want to communicate is "there was no foul". To start throwing around semantics, to me, looks like we are being "officious" rather than being "officials".

I agree wholeheartedly, but my region was trained to include the verbal. Like I said, I try to keep it to one syllable, which is the next best thing, I suppose.

Agreed, absolutely, but as I said earlier isn't this a very debatable call a large percentage of the time about whether there was enough contact to be a foul? Can't we just read between the lines and know that the coach means: Hey, that guy gave my guy a PUSH in the BACK when
he went OVER him on that rebound. Try this angle.
Coaches also yell: Walk! He walked! That's a walk! etc.
I find no violation which contains the word walk. Why do we not insist that he yell: Hey, 33 illegally moved his pivot foot!


Please excuse my ignorance, but what exactly is this myth?

The myth exists
 

Many coaches and fans have heard the term 'over-the-back' so many times that they actually believe it is illegal to play the ball from behind another player. I think we've all seen completely clean blocks or steals when a player brings the ball behind their head with two hands. Then everyone yells for 'over-the-back' despite the fact that there was obviously no contact. Same thing on rebounds, when there is a taller player behind a shorter one, or just a better jumper. I cringe when that taller player is called for a clean rebound. I call it a penalty for being tall. Then you see that dejected look on their face because it's their fourth foul and they know they got hosed. Oh, and I've seen the otb mechanic too. I refer to it as the Frankenstein signal.

Why that term?
 

"Over the back." Coaches do not yell when their player has been out jumped facing each other, but for some reason when a player is behind them, they think there is a foul. Contact can only cause a foul and it can occur on any side of any player. There is nothing special about contact with a player's back.

And at least the term "walk" falls in line with "travel." You are correct it is not "rulebook" language, but at least suggesting a player walks, does not go totally against the wording of the rulebook. The terms "running with the ball" are used to describe traveling.

The bottom line is "over the back" is the term they use. We do not have them say, "he was over the front." So it is clearly based on a myth, not the reality of verticality which the rulebook uses.

Peace

With all due respect, I don't think this is a matter of merely splitting hairs. "Over-the-back" is believed by MANY people to be a legitimate foul and they ASSUME it's in the rulebook. Perpetuating that misconception doesn't make sense.

I don't disagree, and never did, that the public is ignorant of the fact that not every "over the back" situation is illegal. They're ignorant of a lot of things :D

My point is that sometimes a foul does occur. And using "over the back" helps me explain it to a player or coach, even if I don't report it to the table that way.

This notion that not using the rulebook term verbatim perpetuates some kind of gross misinterpretation of the rules is total crap IMO. If people can figure out that it's not necessarily a foul to bump a guy in the low post, or that not every contact with the hand is a hack, they can figure out that not every rebound from behind is a foul.

There's lots of terms being used out there that aren't in the rulebook. That's what I meant by splitting hairs.

I can't say I have ever heard a coach or a fan yell "Over the back" when there was no contact at all. The contact may not have been enough in the official's eyes to warrant a foul, but that doesn't mean that there was no contact at all. When they yell that, they are saying they disagree with the no-call on a particular play. They are using a clear shorthand for "That was a push on Number 33! Remember 'It is a form of pushing when the player holding the ball is contacted by a defensive player who approaches from behind.'" They are also saying they don't think it was incidental contact.

While I dropped the term "over the back" from my coaching (and howling) vocabulary quite a while ago, I have never met anybody who thinks it is a foul to reach over someone without touching them. Likewise, I don't know of any coach who thinks "reaching in" without contact is a foul. If there are such people, officials not using those terms during a game will not cure them of their ignorance. The terms are descriptive of actions that precipitated the foul, and most people are smart enough to realize that. Canuckrefguy's attempts to communicate with the coaches and fans improve game management, they don't perpetuate some strange idea that there can be personal fouls without contact.

The problem comes with how the coach and the various fans hear the phrase, "Over the Back." If they think that reaching over without contact is a foul, they hear you re-affirm that reaching over without contact is a foul. If you say "push", they hear that pushing is a foul, but they don't necessarily hear that contact is the criteria. I use the words, "There was a lot of contact" quietly to the coach after reporting, to indicate that the "over the back" wasn't the problem. If they ask about a no-call, I say, "Over the back isn't a foul, unless there's too much contact."

This is a big "IF" in my experience. Most people HAVEN"T figured out that "it's not necessarily a foul to bump a guy in the low post", and that "not every contact with the hand is a hack, and that reaching in without contact is not a foul", and that over the back without contact is not a foul. Many, many coaches don't know these rules well at all. Many, many players and many, many fans don't know them. They get all bent out of shape about no-calls, and aren't careful about understanding the game, to their own detriment. If we use proper language, and keep explaining the situation carefully, at least we aren't contributing to the problem, even if we can't fix it.

Absolutely! Remember, when I originated this thread, my issue was with an Assistant Coach who was repeatedly yelling to his boys on the floor, saying "Well, I guess these refs think they took 'over-the-back' out of the rulebook."

I think you may be giving a lot of people waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy too much credit. Most coaches/players/fans are extremely biased, which is totally expected and not a bad thing. They're rooting for their team, and want every call to go their way. So if they see 100 rebounds-from-behind and no foul call, their conclusion is likely NOT going to be, "Hmmm, there must be no such thing as 'over the back' ". Rather, they'll probably be thinking, "We just screwed by that ref 100 times in a row!"

Just my opinion, of course.

Chuck

Butch, where do you officiate?!?! Can I come and join you? B/c we get morons that yell for this all the time where I am.

Chuck

So if they see 100 rebounds-from-behind and no foul call, their conclusion is likely NOT going to be, "Hmmm, there must be no such thing as 'over the back' ". [/B][/QUOTE]Would you call this "over the back"?
http://www.uselessgraphics.com/carto96.gif