Debunking the "over the back" myth

[Adam]

Originally posted by Rock'nRef
I'm going to take a little different approach here...

There IS a reason for all this madness. In my opinion, there SHOULD be a signal for over the back and it should be described as "Over the Back" (Was that ever the actual call somewhere in the past?). When a player climbs over someone's back for a rebound, I call and signal a push but actually looking at the play, the player committing the foul hasn't really "pushed" anyone. He went "over someone's back" to gain an advantage. Usually, as long as I blow it dead and I call the foul on the player who obviously "went over someone's back", I never hear any complaints. But, honestly, why call something (a push) that actually appears to be (climbing over someone's back). It's tough enough trying to make everyone understand what's going on out there without adding fuel to the fire by implying something that could be described in a better way. I'm all for change if I think it will help improve the understanding of the game. I think this would.

I guess I'm feeling a little funky tonight....

RR

But it is a push, usually a push with the body as he jumps into the player in front. If nothing else, you could call it "charging" while giving the push signal. That would be accurate.
Of course, people confuse that with PC fouls, so it probably wouldn't be any better. But it would be most accurate, I think.

snaqwells