Over & Back on Throw In

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why? This one accurately describes the situation....unlike over-the-back. I don't think I know of a single official that says anything other than over-and-back.

Huh. Maybe this is a just me thing, then. I think it's an antiquated term that sounds very junior-high-official. It's not always an accurate term for what that violation is, it's not listed in the rule or case books to my knowledge (NFHS or NCAA), and the only place I know it exists is in the...wait for it...(sarcasm on) my favorite book of all time: the IAABO Officials' Manual, and only in the signal chart.

I personally say "backcourt" or "backcourt violation" while making the signal.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Huh. Maybe this is a just me thing, then. I think it's an antiquated term that sounds very junior-high-official. It's not always an accurate term for what that violation is, it's not listed in the rule or case books to my knowledge (NFHS or NCAA), and the only place I know it exists is in the...wait for it...(sarcasm on) my favorite book of all time: the IAABO Officials' Manual, and only in the signal chart.

I personally say "backcourt" or "backcourt violation" while making the signal.

It is a perfectly accurate description of the play in all cases I can think of...you have to get the ball over the division line and then go back to have the violation. It isn't necessarily verbose enough to tell the full story but neither is "backcourt".

As for what is listed in the books, that doesn't stop people from reporting illegal use of hands as "hits", at least around here. I don't and think it sounds silly, but it is common, particularly in the college crowd. And in a lot if cases, "hits" is not actually correct.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is a perfectly accurate description of the play in all cases I can think of...you have to get the ball over the division line and then go back to have the violation. It isn't necessarily verbose enough to tell the full story but neither is "backcourt".

As for what is listed in the books, that doesn't stop people from reporting illegal use of hands as "hits", at least around here. I don't and think it sounds silly, but it is common, particularly in the college crowd. And in a lot if cases, "hits" is not actually correct.

"Hit" is in the NCAA-W manual, fwiw. "HitS" sounds plain stupid to me, personally.

Examples of backcourt violations that don't fit "over and back":

1) A thrown-in ball that is player-controlled in the frontcourt that then obtains backcourt status (last touched by A, first touched by A) never necessarily went "over the division line" before going "back."

2) A jump ball that ends which then immediately results in a backcourt violation hasn't necessarily crossed the division line at all.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

"Hit" is in the NCAA-W manual, fwiw. "HitS" sounds plain stupid to me, personally.

Examples of backcourt violations that don't fit "over and back":

1) A thrown-in ball that is player-controlled in the frontcourt that then obtains backcourt status (last touched by A, first touched by A) never necessarily went "over the division line" before going "back."

You mean being in the frontcourt is not over the line but is behind the line?????

You're going to have to explain that one.

It is "being" over the line, not "going" over the line.

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

2) A jump ball that ends which then immediately results in a backcourt violation hasn't necessarily crossed the division line at all.

Same thing. I have no idea how the ball can gain FC status (which is necessary to have a violation) without it ever being "over" the line by nature of contact with the floor or in contact with a player who is in the FC (noting the definition of ball location).

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

You mean being in the frontcourt is not over the line but is behind the line?????

No. I'm simply saying the ball doesn't have to cross the division line to gain FC status in a thrown-in ball from literally half of the possible locations for a throw-in.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is "being" over the line, not "going" over the line.

I suppose that's another way of looking at it, but again, not wholly accurate in some situations, such as the violation immediately following a jump ball.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Same thing. I have no idea how the ball can gain FC status (which is necessary to have a violation) without it ever being "over" the line by nature of contact with the floor or in contact with a player who is in the FC (noting the definition of ball location).

An airborne player can give the ball status.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

No. I'm simply saying the ball doesn't have to cross the division line to gain FC status in a thrown-in ball from literally half of the possible locations for a throw-in.

So what? Nothing said it had to cross the line. The problem isn't going over and back. It's being over and then going back.

How it got over is the part that's irrelevant.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by just another ref

So what? Nothing said it had to cross the line. The problem isn't going over and back. It's being over and then going back.How it got over is the part that's irrelevant.

That's fine, jar, but there are still ways there can be a backcourt violation without the ball ever "being" over the division line on jump balls and throw-ins. I've alluded to one of them above.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

No. I'm simply saying the ball doesn't have to cross the division line to gain FC status in a thrown-in ball from literally half of the possible locations for a throw-in.

An airborne player can give the ball status.

And, by rule, where is that player? They're in the FC having jumped from the FC so when the ball touches that player, the ball also has FC status and has made it over to FC. "Over" is not a physical position relative to the plane of the division line but a status. Try again.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

And, by rule, where is that player? They're in the FC having jumped from the FC so when the ball touches that player, the ball also has FC status and has made it over to FC. "Over" is not a physical position relative to the plane of the division line but a status. Try again.

Wow. Okay. No, it hasn't made it "over to the FC;" it has obtained FC status. Those are not mutually inclusive. One is a physical location, one is a status applied without regard to the ball's physical location. I don't really know that this is worth debating anymore, but now you're suggesting that "over" = not physically over the division line, but instead that "over" = having obtained FC status, which is not quite what you were stating earlier in the thread:

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

It is a perfectly accurate description of the play in all cases I can think of...you have to get the ball over the division lineand then go back to have the violation.

But again, I think we've about exhausted this one.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Ed Maeder

Which brings up the question. Why do we verbalize the nature of the foul when reporting when the officials manual only calls for a visual signal.

that this has been discussed multiple times before, and I don't remember there being a clear consensus.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

I'd stay away from the phrase "over and back," and try to just use rule book terminology when discussing this type of play/possible violation.

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Why? This one accurately describes the situation....unlike over-the-back. I don't think I know of a single official that says anything other than over-and-back.

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Huh. Maybe this is a just me thing, then. I think it's an antiquated term that sounds very junior-high-official. It's not always an accurate term for what that violation is, it's not listed in the rule or case books to my knowledge (NFHS or NCAA), and the only place I know it exists is in the...wait for it...(sarcasm on) my favorite book of all time: the IAABO Officials' Manual, and only in the signal chart.

I personally say "backcourt" or "backcourt violation" while making the signal.

It is in the NFHS signal chart too...so I believe that makes it official.

And I challenge you to create a "backcourt" violation where over-and-back is not accurate.

I could probably, if I tried, come up with more reasons why backcourt is less accurate or less complete than over and back versus the reverse.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by HawkeyeCubP

Huh. Maybe this is a just me thing, then. I think it's an antiquated term that sounds very junior-high-official. It's not always an accurate term for what that violation is, it's not listed in the rule or case books to my knowledge (NFHS or NCAA), and the only place I know it exists is in the...wait for it...(sarcasm on) my favorite book of all time: the IAABO Officials' Manual, and only in the signal chart.

I personally say "backcourt" or "backcourt violation" while making the signal.

Pleas look at the signal chart, which is in the rules book, Number 22. The caption under the picture.....

"Over and Back"