Referees

[bschultz]

Ask any ref about "over the back"...they'll roll their eyes. The "foul" that everyone yells out from the crowd...doesn't exist.

I'm just saying that an NCAA Tournament announcer should know that "over the back" isn't a foul. If you want to use a description for what the foul was...ON the back MIGHT be a foul. Miriam Webster says over is: extending directly upward from. Which would mean jumping higher than the player in front of you. Not a foul.

Our job is to accurately say what happened. Watch what the ref signals to the table on an "over the back" foul. He/she will signal push. Tell your listeners that the foul was a push...since that is true.

[malden153]

I frequently hear broadcasters announce the names of the referees in a given game. I've never understood this. The names mean nothing to 99% of your listeners and to me it's useless filler. Unless a coach or player has a known rift with an official, think Tim Duncan and Joey Crawford, the information just seems pointless. I suppose it could also be relevant in a few other very extreme cases, but those instances are rare. I'm curious what other people's thoughts are on this.

I respectfully yet thoroughly disagree. The officials are a crucial part of any sporting event. They're too important to the game to make them faceless. The name of the player who comes into the game in a mop-up role doesn't mean anything to most listeners either, but of course you're going to identify him/her. Frankly, I feel someone is being less than thorough if the officials are not included in the lineups, no matter the level. It is a respect issue as well. Certainly, there's no need to continuously identify them during play as we do the players, and dealing with controversy is a separate issue. As some say, heaven is in the details, and this detail is at the very least a nice touch.

Oh, and on "over the back"--even my 103-year-old grandmother knows that if someone goes over the back yet doesn't make contact, it's not a foul. It is a descriptor and nothing more.

[pbpisfun]

Ask any ref about "over the back"...they'll roll their eyes. The "foul" that everyone yells out from the crowd...doesn't exist.

I'm just saying that an NCAA Tournament announcer should know that "over the back" isn't a foul. If you want to use a description for what the foul was...ON the back MIGHT be a foul. Miriam Webster says over is: extending directly upward from. Which would mean jumping higher than the player in front of you. Not a foul.

Our job is to accurately say what happened. Watch what the ref signals to the table on an "over the back" foul. He/she will signal push. Tell your listeners that the foul was a push...since that is true.

Again, it is simply semantics.

You left out this definition: so as to rest on or cover; on or upon

I suppose if I throw a blanket "over" you it never touches you? If I drive "over" a bridge, my car never touches the bridge? If my dog lays "over" my lap, he never makes contact? No different than if a guy goes over my back to grab a rebound and makes hard contact. It can and does happen.

If you go "over" a guy's back and make contact, clearly it is a foul. If you go "over" a guy's back and don't touch him, clearly it isn't a foul. Brian Anderson was describing a foul where clearly the guy went over a guy's back and made illegal contact.

The premise that "over the back" isn't a foul is based on the false pretense that people think that "over the back" doesn't involve contact. That is false. It is possible to not involve contact, but almost 100% of the time when someone yells it, they are referencing a play where contact (sometimes illegal contact) is involved. "Over the back" with contact is a foul, just as "hammering a guy on the elbow" is a foul. Neither technically is in the rule book, but both can be used as a simple descriptor. Not sure why it would bother anyone.

[bschultz]

MW didn't have that in it's definition. Either way...how can you possibly say that an announcer should use the term over the back to say what the foul was...when that wasn't the foul that was called...because it doesn't exist?

Our job is to tell the listeners or viewers what happened...and "over the back" didn't happen!

How about we all educate our listeners as to what the rules are...and what was called? We're all better off if we do that.

[Tyking]

A lot of you might be assuming that because different officials have different reputations, your listeners/viewers will know what those reputations are just based on their names being given out. That's simply not the case.

Not to mention, you'll have to remind your viewers/listeners of that reputation during the game since not all will hear you right at the start of the game.

If it's an official of no generally agreed-on reputation, regardless of level, the name is irrelevant. I'd suggest the vast minority of officials at levels we're all calling have as defined a reputation as to justify being called out by name.

[Bill Czaja]

A lot of you might be assuming that because different officials have different reputations, your listeners/viewers will know what those reputations are just based on their names being given out. That's simply not the case.

Not to mention, you'll have to remind your viewers/listeners of that reputation during the game since not all will hear you right at the start of the game.

If it's an official of no generally agreed-on reputation, regardless of level, the name is irrelevant. I'd suggest the vast minority of officials at levels we're all calling have as defined a reputation as to justify being called out by name.

Most listeners don't know the "reputation" of any given official, even if that person has one. That's not dissimilar to the "logic" in inserting a bunch of locker-room nicknames and inside jokes into a broadcast. If your listeners don't get it, don't use it.

[Bill Czaja]

But the name of the umpire/etc. is still relevant because that person exists in the context of your broadcast. If you're working a spring-training game and the guy coming in to burn off the last two innings in center field has no chance to make the team, you would still reference the substitution.

[Marty Bannister 1]

As the umpire/referee is on the field/court/ice, thus they are part of the goings on and should be mentioned. I usually get that out of the way right before tip/kick/first pitch. IMO, it adds to the listeners sense that you know everything that is going on, which is how it should be.

[RadioPat1982]

Just had a situation this weekend for a college softball series we broadcast. We gave the names before each game as normal. As with any sporting event, if everything goes right you never really have to mention the officials again. This was not this case for this series however.

Things got pretty heated with the road coach and on specific umpire. You could feel the tension building from game one on to game three. It certainly became a story line through out the series.

I could not imagine just ignoring it was going on. The games were stopped multiple time for this coach to question the calls of one specific umpire. Like others have said, they are part of the game. In fact, a key play that prevented the winning run to score was missed on a close call at 1B. This was a video broadcast so we had the benefit of replay on TV but it clearly showed the runner was safe. It would have changed the outcome of the game.

I've always viewed officials basically as a third team on the field. Like any team, they on occasion have bad games as well.....

[xavier02]

The refs and umpire need to be given a short Introduction...it is part of the game since they are the ones who determine the rules regarding game day action and if any players or teams get penalties....it makes a huge difference, especially in the NFL these days since people are suing left and right regarding concussions and there are always new rules to study before the season starts.