Debunking the "over the back" myth

[canuckrefguy]

Originally posted by JRutledge
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.

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 think you should not use any verbage at the table. You should just signal the infraction and not verbalize it.

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.