Debunking the "over the back" myth

[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.