You Don't Say ...

bballref3966 · #1 (**permalink**) Sun Mar 02, 2014, 11:54pm

I would hope we would never give credence to the nonexistent "over the back rule" by reporting a foul to the table this way. I would not be happy to see my partner report a foul that way...

#2 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 12:01am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bballref3966

I would hope we would never give credence to the nonexistent "over the back rule" by reporting a foul to the table this way. I would not be happy to see my partner report a foul that way...

Why not? It's just a colloquial term for "push" or "displacement" or "rebounding foul".

BillyMac · #3 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 12:09am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AremRed

Why not? It's just a colloquial term for "push" or "displacement" or "rebounding foul".

Because only one of these, "Push", has a corresponding signal when reporting to the table. In addition, over the back isn't a foul, "over" implying no contact, while on the back may be a foul, but it still doesn't have a corresponding signal to report to that table. Another reason: Although colloquial terms are great for everyday conversations, officials should try to use formal (colloquial means informal) rulebook language whenever possible.

#4 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 12:17am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

officials should try to use formal (colloquial means informal) rulebook language whenever possible.

I can agree with that.

Rob1968 · #5 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 01:01am

Grammar

. . . smarter than me, could be smarter than I. The phraze infers "he is smarter than I am," and we would not say "he is smarter than me am."
The simplest test of such phrazes is to separate the two and test whether one would say them, separately and completely, with the desired verb, as one tends to say them in plural or intimating the verb by the structure.
Yes, it's a nit I just picked.

BillyMac · #6 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 07:06am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob1968

... smarter than me, could be smarter than I. The phrases infers "he is smarter than I am," and we would not say "he is smarter than me am." The simplest test of such phrases is to separate the two and test whether one would say them, separately and completely, with the desired verb, as one tends to say them in plural or intimating the verb by the structure.

Is that you Mr. Baumgartner, my high school sophomore English teacher? I didn't know that you were a basketball official. In fact, I didn't know that you were still alive. What's it feel like to be 110 years old?

Rob1968 · #7 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 10:02am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Is that you Mr. Baumgartner, my high school sophomore English teacher? I didn't know that you were a basketball official. In fact, I didn't know that you were still alive. What's it feel like to be 110 years old?

Billy,
Your grace and humor, as demonstrated by not telling me to just keep my nitpicking to myself, speaks highly of your character. Such comments, as I made regarding pronoun usage, are transmitted with respect and affection, although we haven't had the pleasure to meet. As with many others on the forum, I would find such acquaintance to be a moment of great joy.

MD Longhorn · #8 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 01:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob1968

Grammar

. . . smarter than me, could be smarter than I. The phraze infers "he is smarter than I am," and we would not say "he is smarter than me am."
The simplest test of such phrazes is to separate the two and test whether one would say them, separately and completely, with the desired verb, as one tends to say them in plural or intimating the verb by the structure.
Yes, it's a nit I just picked.

Actually no, this is not correct. In "smarter than me", "me" is an object, not a subject. Adding "am" changes the sentence, but "am" is not necessary. Replace "me" with any other subject. Smarter than a rock. "A rock" is the object of the sentence. Smarter than a rock is - "a rock" is the subject of a subordinate phrase.

Smarter than ME is correct.

bob jenkins · #9 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 02:27pm

"I" is correct.

bballref3966 · #10 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 12:15am

Quote:

Originally Posted by AremRed

Why not? It's just a colloquial term for "push" or "displacement" or "rebounding foul".

Because many fans think any time a tall player secures a rebound over a shorter one without contact that it's "over the back." Reporting "over the back" (a non-rule book term that communicates the wrong message) only adds credence to this myth. A push or displacement doesn't always happen by virtue of reaching "over the back." Sometimes the most common fouls in this situation are ones the involve the behind defender bumping the guy with inside rebounding position forward. Are you telling me it makes sense to report "over the back" in this instance?

If it's just a colloquial term, does that mean it's okay for us to yell "on the floor" for a foul prior to the act of shooting? Colloquial terms much of the time aren't the right terms to use.

bainsey · #11 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 11:11am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bballref3966

Because many fans think any time a tall player secures a rebound over a shorter one without contact that it's "over the back."

There it is. I had to tell three coaches this year that "over the back is legal." I've loved the stunned look each time.

If you still believe "on" and "over" are the same thing, is it an automatic homerun when a fair ball goes ON the fence?

john5396 · #12 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 01:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bainsey

There it is. I had to tell three coaches this year that "over the back is legal." I've loved the stunned look each time.

If you still believe "on" and "over" are the same thing, is it an automatic homerun when a fair ball goes ON the fence?

As a baseball umpire, I dont think I have ever considered the case where a fly ball comes to rest on the top of the fence...

BillyMac · #13 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 12:03am

Quote:

Originally Posted by bballref3966

I would hope we would never give credence to the nonexistent "over the back rule" by reporting a foul to the table this way. I would not be happy to see my partner report a foul that way...

A few do. Mostly very young, less experienced rookies (who hopefully get it straightened out right away through peer evaluations), and very old veterans (who have done it that way for decades, and aren't going to change).

Rich · #14 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 08:01am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyMac

A few do. Mostly very young, less experienced rookies (who hopefully get it straightened out right away through peer evaluations), and very old veterans (who have done it that way for decades, and aren't going to change).

I call that signal the "Creeping Death Foul."

BillyMac · #15 (**permalink**) Mon Mar 03, 2014, 05:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich

I call that signal the "Creeping Death Foul."

Over The Back Signal: