Illegal Use of Hands
 

I'm curious, what do you all verbalize when you report the 'Illegal Use of Hands' chop foul signal to the table? I've heard various things on this one; "hands", "on the arm", "reach"...

Nothing.

2 of the 3 you listed are things I say.

That 3rd one. :eek:

"Hit" or nothing. Also say "in the head" with that signal if the hit was to the head in a HS game. And I don't consider it a "chop" signal, because my hitting hand and the hand of the arm being "hit" are both closed into fists, fwiw.

Illegal use

Hit

"Hands"

I used to say "hit" but usually say nothing now and just verbalize the proper signal after reporting color, number.

A lot of guys around here say "hit". I say "illegal", probably too much. Should start saying other things that are more descriptive of the actual perpetration.

Nothing.

This.

So the guys saying 'nothing', I'm taking it that you just verbalize the color and number and then make the signal no matter what the infraction?

For me it is usually "On the arm", "To the head" or sometimes nothing.

That's the way I handle it.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Hit Man ...
 

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

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.

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:

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.

That seems harsh, doesn't it?

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.

Verboten ...
 

"On the floor."

"Over the back."

"Moving screen."

"Let it hit the rim."

Others?

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.