Debunking the "over the back" myth

[Rich]

I was at an SEC game a few years ago with a good friend who now teaches at Wake Forest.

He knew I was an official and he would ask questions every once in a while about rule differences, etc. He was knowledgable enough about the game he could've been an outstanding official had he had the desire to be one.

We were watching the game and an SEC official calls an "over-the-back" foul.

He reports and gives this signal that could only be described by my friend and myself as "the creeping death foul."

The official put two hands over his head, curled forward, and took a few steps forward and lifted his arms up and over an imaginary player. The creeping death foul.

We still mention it to each other when we talk and laugh about it even though it had to have happened 5-7 years ago.

I saw it again during a D-I women's game this season. I almost blew Pepsi through my nose.

Rich

Edited to add: To respond to JAR -- I have no problem with the phrase "over the back" or "reaching in." The problem I have is that had there been contact that caused a disadvantage, I would've called it. Some coaches seem to automatically think that the inside player has a righ tto the rebound. Of course if the player behind is able to go over without contact, there's no call. But the "over-the-back" screamers don't usually see it that way.

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Feb 15th, 2003 at 10:07 AM]