Debunking the "over the back" myth

[canuckrefguy]

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

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.