Illegal Use of Hands

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by cmckenna

NOTHING.

Why are you saying anything that you do not have to. The mechanics manual does not state anything about speaking the nature of the foul. Just the approved signals.

Speaking just opens yourself up for more trouble. COLOR, NUMBER, SIGNAL.

True, the majority of the time, but it can serve to help sell and/or explain the call sometimes - especially in states that do not want HS officials using supplementary signals that aren't currently in the manual.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by cmckenna

NOTHING.

Why are you saying anything that you do not have to. The mechanics manual does not state anything about speaking the nature of the foul. Just the approved signals.

Speaking just opens yourself up for more trouble. COLOR, NUMBER, SIGNAL.

How much trouble can you really get just by saying "arm", "push", "handcheck", etc?

[APG]

Originally Posted by cmckenna

NOTHING.

Why are you saying anything that you do not have to. The mechanics manual does not state anything about speaking the nature of the foul. Just the approved signals.

Speaking just opens yourself up for more trouble. COLOR, NUMBER, SIGNAL.

What trouble or you opening yourself up to? If anything, I've stopped a coach from potentially arguing a call by verbalizing what happened on the play.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by APG

What trouble or you opening yourself up to? If anything, I've stopped a coach from potentially arguing a call by verbalizing what happened on the play.

Maybe it's one of those old wives tales of officiating...I was always told the same thing - the less you say, the less trouble you will get into. Never have figured that out as it applies to this, but I still only verbalize when it's something that needs some kind of clarification - like an illegal screen, or a hit to the head or something like that.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by cmckenna

NOTHING.

Why are you saying anything that you do not have to. The mechanics manual does not state anything about speaking the nature of the foul. Just the approved signals.

Speaking just opens yourself up for more trouble. COLOR, NUMBER, SIGNAL.

How does it open you up to more trouble? It eliminates my troubles b/c after I verbalize I don't have to spend any time explaining to the coach what happened. I just told him when I reported the foul.

[Rich]

I'm not saying I'll never do it. Just not routinely.

[JRutledge]

I always say exactly what they did. If they hit the right arm, I say just that or "Hit him in the head" since we cannot use that signal. That tends to stop a lot of conversation about "What did they do.....?"

Peace

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by cmckenna

The mechanics manual does not state anything about speaking the nature of the foul.

Also true for the IAABO Manual, but I still say, "Hit".

[VaTerp]

Depending on what kind of play it is I may say nothing, "hit", or "on the head."

IMO any offical who says "reach" or even has that word in their vocabulary should suffer physical punishment.

[rekent]

Originally Posted by VaTerp

IMO any offical who says "reach" or even has that word in their vocabulary should suffer physical punishment.

But then what do you call when the defender reaches in and tries to steal the ball from the dribbler??? That isn't fair, it has to be a foul! :sarcasm:

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

True, the majority of the time, but it can serve to help sell and/or explain the call sometimes - especially in states that do not want HS officials using supplementary signals that aren't currently in the manual.

I don't usually verbalize calls, but I do when I call a handcheck. I do the signal and loudly say "two hands!". The players hear that and adjust.

I am thinking a lot about when to verbalize a call. I agree that a coach's question can be answered before it is asked by verbalizing the call. I am unsure about these "potential problems" that others speak of. For me though, sticking to the book is never a bad idea.

Originally Posted by VaTerp

IMO any offical who says "reach" or even has that word in their vocabulary should suffer physical punishment.

That seems harsh, doesn't it?

[Welpe]

Not really. A reach implies a foul with no or minimal contact. As officials, I think we should avoid giving any credence to the notion that reaching is a foul.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Welpe

As officials, I think we should avoid giving any credence to the notion that reaching is a foul.

"On the floor."

"Over the back."

"Moving screen."

"Let it hit the rim."

Others?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by seanwestref

I don't usually verbalize calls, but I do when I call a handcheck. I do the signal and loudly say "two hands!". The players hear that and adjust.

What if the handcheck wasn't with two hands?

I give additional information if needed after the reporting -- an extra signal (tug on the shirt if the "hold" was for pulling the uniform for example), or a "5 words or fewer" explanation to the coach). Usually happens about 2x per game.