|
It is definitely not a personal foul as there was no contact.
My initial reaction is that it is neither.
Rule 10-3-7d (purposely obstructing an opponents vision) was expanded this year to include a player with the ball.
IMO this is a case where the rules committee has enacted a bad rule and the very situation you have proposed attests to it.
The key is PURPOSELY obstucting an oponents vision and due to the nature of the game that is hard to rule that it was an intentional act. Also, due to the severity of the penalty (T foul) many officials will not call it. (As an analogy consider the excessively swinging the elbows rule. The penalty has gone back and forth over the years as a Tech then violation the T. Foul again the back to present violation and still this act is very rarely called)
Why is it bad?
1. "near" is not adequately defined. 1 foot, 2feet, 6 inches? How near do we have to be before we are able to obstruct the player's movement?
2. Many officals have a hard time determining the "intent" of the player to determine if the waving was done "purposely".
3. Severity of penalty only serves to create a severe reaction by players, coaches, and fans. While rules committee says this is a safety issue for the players the enforcement of the rule places the officials in a more volatile environment concerning their own safety.
If you deem the act is purposely done and so near the eyes of the shooter in this case then call the T. And be ready for the reaction the T will receive. It surely will test your game management skills.
|