Debunking the "over the back" myth

[CYO Butch]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

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

It's not that I don't hear it at all - it's just that there has always been some contact involved. The people rooting for their teams are going to see all contact in those situations as fouls, the same way they see their own version of charging or blocking. Sure, there is a dearth of understanding of the details of the rules, but I'm convinced the underlying culprit when we hear the cries is a lack of objectivity, not a misguided notion that you can have a personal foul without contact.

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by CYO Butch
Sure, there is a dearth of understanding of the details of the rules, but I'm convinced the underlying culprit when we hear the cries is a lack of objectivity, not a misguided notion that you can have a personal foul without contact.

Well, maybe it's regional, because folks around here are definitely "misguided" not just biased. Anytime I say to a player, "Did you know that "over-the-back" is not a foul?" they look stupefied. After I explain about contact being the only foul, they either argue or run to their coach and try to understand. Same for reaching in. Coach is yelling, "He's reaching. Don't you see that reach?" "Yes, coach, I see it" "So why don't you call it?" "If there's no contact, there's no foul." "No, no, any reach is a foul." I even had one coach explain about reaching into "the cylinder". I thnk he meant an imaginary cylinder around the ball-handler's body, although that wasn't made clear. Anyway, the point is, people DON"T understand the rules. And language DOES make a huge difference.

[Rock'nRef]

I'm going to take a little different approach here...

There IS a reason for all this madness. In my opinion, there SHOULD be a signal for over the back and it should be described as "Over the Back" (Was that ever the actual call somewhere in the past?). When a player climbs over someone's back for a rebound, I call and signal a push but actually looking at the play, the player committing the foul hasn't really "pushed" anyone. He went "over someone's back" to gain an advantage. Usually, as long as I blow it dead and I call the foul on the player who obviously "went over someone's back", I never hear any complaints. But, honestly, why call something (a push) that actually appears to be (climbing over someone's back). It's tough enough trying to make everyone understand what's going on out there without adding fuel to the fire by implying something that could be described in a better way. I'm all for change if I think it will help improve the understanding of the game. I think this would.

I guess I'm feeling a little funky tonight....

RR

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by rainmaker
Well, maybe it's regional, because folks around here are definitely "misguided" not just biased. Anytime I say to a player, "Did you know that "over-the-back" is not a foul?" they look stupefied. After I explain about contact being the only foul, they either argue or run to their coach and try to understand. Same for reaching in. Coach is yelling, "He's reaching. Don't you see that reach?" "Yes, coach, I see it" "So why don't you call it?" "If there's no contact, there's no foul." "No, no, any reach is a foul." I even had one coach explain about reaching into "the cylinder". I thnk he meant an imaginary cylinder around the ball-handler's body, although that wasn't made clear. Anyway, the point is, people DON"T understand the rules. And language DOES make a huge difference.

That's exactly the point. Fans, coaches, and players think it's a foul whether there's contact or not. That's the real crime.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Feb 18th, 2003 at 10:31 AM]

[just another ref]

Originally posted by CYO Butch
I can't say I have ever heard a coach or a fan yell "Over the back" when there was no contact at all

I have. I have. I have.

[Adam]

Originally posted by Rock'nRef
I'm going to take a little different approach here...

There IS a reason for all this madness. In my opinion, there SHOULD be a signal for over the back and it should be described as "Over the Back" (Was that ever the actual call somewhere in the past?). When a player climbs over someone's back for a rebound, I call and signal a push but actually looking at the play, the player committing the foul hasn't really "pushed" anyone. He went "over someone's back" to gain an advantage. Usually, as long as I blow it dead and I call the foul on the player who obviously "went over someone's back", I never hear any complaints. But, honestly, why call something (a push) that actually appears to be (climbing over someone's back). It's tough enough trying to make everyone understand what's going on out there without adding fuel to the fire by implying something that could be described in a better way. I'm all for change if I think it will help improve the understanding of the game. I think this would.

I guess I'm feeling a little funky tonight....

RR

But it is a push, usually a push with the body as he jumps into the player in front. If nothing else, you could call it "charging" while giving the push signal. That would be accurate.
Of course, people confuse that with PC fouls, so it probably wouldn't be any better. But it would be most accurate, I think.

snaqwells