Kicking this Rule 10-4-6-d
 

I was speaking some of my officiating colleagues yesterday while hanging out on the deck and enjoying some Millers (not lite!). We are all 'officiating geeks': one of them raised the issue---we worked a few men's wreck games last week and noticed that some of the players do indeed put their hands in front of airborne A1 shooters face. She was hesitant to call this a technical foul and chose to call a "shooting foul" [A1's attempt was missed]. She asked us, what would we have done? I said that I agreed with her call, and had before--though inconsistently also called this a common foul--but not a T. Another guy said he had never called this observation/action a foul. The other member of party said she had observed this action, but never called it either type of foul. We continued enjoying our Millers and basically came to the concensus that most refs 'kick this rule'.

Question: do you'all kick this rule or do you call a shooting foul or a player technical? I suppose that in an NF game you'd call it differently than in wreck leagues? : > )

POE 4A: "The committee does not intend good defense to be penalized. Challenging a shooter with a "hand in the face" or fronting a post player with a hand in the air to prevent a post pass are examples of acceptable actions. The rule and point of emphasis is designed to penalize actions that are clearly not related to playing the game of basketball properly and that intentionally restrict vision. Often, that occurs off the ball or as players are moving up the court.".

As such, I do not call anything...especially not a shooting foul with no contact.

Good thread and post discussion this: https://forum.officiating.com/basket...tml#post658868

Just because there is a hand blocking someone's vision doesn't mean I'm calling something. If it's a last ditch effort by the defense to try and block the players vision then I will call a technical. There needs to be intent and it needs to be fairly obvious(to me). I've only ever called it once and I was 100% certain what the player was trying to do. A player got trapped in a corner and both defensive players were trying to cover his eyes.

I definitely wouldn't be calling a regular foul here. Ever. Personally, I like to be able to have a good reason for whatever I did when an assigner is going over video with me. "Because I didn't wanna!" isn't a defense I want to use.

If you're calling this a "shooting foul", you're definitely kicking the rule.

*I will keep this "application" in mind and share with the group this weekend, thanks.

*Thanks for this reference source---an informative previous thread.

Calling a common foul for no contact is not a good idea. How do you defend your position when asked by a coach, your partner, or assignor.

*You are correct--as the only available option is to issue a "T" [without a 'warning'].

*oops I mis-typed---meant to say 'shooting foul'--at any rate as it has been poined outt, both myself and my colleague were incorrect.

Same people who will make such a call on a "flop" play.

You can warn, it's just not an "official" warning. Just like we do when junior is getting close to the sporting line.

And you're only going to see this in men's rec league or little kid YMCA ball.

I like to say hands down. Then warn the player not to do it again.

I dont think any of us like a T here. Clearly the reason for it is safety. Why not give a foul and tell the coach. I warned him twice he kept doing it. I think a T hurts your team to much so I gave a common foul. Can you please have a talk with him.

Again talking its going to prevent this when you see it every 1000 games. I doubt anyone will have to make a decision on this.

I think we kick a lot more things much worse than this. It is an interesting discussion.

:mad:

Stick to reffing.

If you think it's enough of a problem to address, then address with the proper remedy, not something that is made up and cannot be defended by your supervisor/assignor.

So, you're giving someone a common foul for no contact? That's a harder sell than just doing what the rule says to do.