Debunking the "over the back" myth

[rainmaker]

Originally posted by 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.

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."

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.

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.