My New #1 Myth

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by tref

Why hold back?

Coach: Over the back.
Official: No contact no foul, coach.
At this level on the next dead ball you could explain that on the back is a foul but over the back minus contact isnt. Sometimes on the back that doesnt result in possession consequence wont get a whistle.

Coach: He's reachin' in.
Official: Again, no contact no foul, coach.
At this level on the next dead ball you could explain how it would be tough for defenders to get steals without reaching.

JMO

That is not a good thing to say. A player can reach in or go over the back and make contact with his opponent without fouling him.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Cobra

That is not a good thing to say. A player can reach in or go over the back and make contact with his opponent without fouling him.

That was his point...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

That was his point...

No, his point was that there can't be a foul without contact. The coach is going to hear it that way and in his mind add the unspoken, "if there's any contact it's a foul."

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, his point was that there can't be a foul without contact. The coach is going to hear it that way and in his mind add the unspoken, "if there's any contact it's a foul."

Maybe, maybe not. How can you know for sure that's what the synapses are brewing?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Maybe, maybe not. How can you know for sure that's what the synapses are brewing?

Maybe I'm jaded, but I assume they'll take the meaning that was furthest from my intent. Short phrases are best, but they often leave too much room for misinterpretation.

Official: "No contact, no foul."
Coach: "But there was contact!"

Now you've started a conversation. I would only possibly say this if I know 100% for certain there was no contact; but even then, on the next play when there is some incidental contat, you've set yourself up for another conversation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Maybe, maybe not. How can you know for sure that's what the synapses are brewing?

Experience.

That is, while we can't know "for sure" that's what is going on, we know there's a 92.8% chance it's true.

I use either "no displacement" or "no advantage" or "incidental contact" when I choose to address this.

[Duffman]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Experience.

That is, while we can't know "for sure" that's what is going on, we know there's a 92.8% chance it's true.

I use either "no displacement" or "no advantage" or "incidental contact" when I choose to address this.

Do a ton of youth ball on the weekends so I get all these more than most as fans seem to a be a bit more knowledgeable as the teams get older.

1) 3 seconds myths. For the life of me I don't understand why people yell the loudest about things they understand the least. People don't understand things like a try stops the count, or you need team control for a 3 second violation. You see the former a lot in youth ball when you end up with ten kids in the lane as two tall kids take turns exchanging air balls over the rim because nobody knows how to use the damn back board. Inevitably you end up with someone counting 1-2-3-4-5-6-7.... as this happens.

My favorite was earlier this year when I had a fan literally screaming at the top of her lungs for 3 seconds during an inbound play.

2) Sliding with possession of the ball is traveling.

3) The defense has to be 100% set and stationary to take a charge.

[Smitty]

Originally Posted by Duffman

Do a ton of youth ball on the weekends so I get all these more than most as fans seem to a be a bit more knowledgeable as the teams get older.

Really?

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by AllPurposeGamer

That was his point...

No. The coach says, "Hey, that is over the back." He says, "No contact, no foul." He should say, "No illegal contact which hindered the opponent from preforming his normal movements."

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Cobra

No. The coach says, "Hey, that is over the back." He says, "No contact, no foul." He should say, "No illegal contact which hindered the opponent from preforming his normal movements."

That sentence is too long, IMO, so unless the coach has actually asked a question, I don't respond to "over the back." Oddly, I've never had a coach actually ask why this isn't a foul; they simply yell "over the back."

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Cobra

No. The coach says, "Hey, that is over the back." He says, "No contact, no foul." He should say, "No illegal contact which hindered the opponent from preforming his normal movements."

Did you forget a smiley?

Me I'm going with "he didn't touch him coach" or "he went straight up".

If the coach infers my first statement to mean that any contact during a rebound is a foul that's his problem. The minimum requiremet for a foul is contact, it's not the only requirement.

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Did you forget a smiley?

Me I'm going with "he didn't touch him coach" or "he went straight up".

If the coach infers my first statement to mean that any contact during a rebound is a foul that's his problem. The minimum requiremet for a foul is contact, it's not the only requirement.

Yeah, of course you can't say that whole long sentence. But if you shorten it too much like the one poster did then other problems are created.