is this a foul?

[foobar247]

i'm no pro at basketball, and have been looking on the net trying to clarify some rules, but have not had any luck. so hopefully someone can clarify this for me:

if a defender is putting a hand up to block a shooter's shot, and as the shooter moves his hands forward to shoot, and makes contact with the defender's arm, is that a foul?

also, is it a foul if the defender reaches out to take a swipe(trying to block) at the shooter, and makes contact with the shooter's arm after the ball has already left the shooter's hands?

Thanks!

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally posted by foobar247
i'm no pro at basketball, and have been looking on the net trying to clarify some rules, but have not had any luck. so hopefully someone can clarify this for me:

if a defender is putting a hand up to block a shooter's shot, and as the shooter moves his hands forward to shoot, and makes contact with the defender's arm, is that a foul?

also, is it a foul if the defender reaches out to take a swipe(trying to block) at the shooter, and makes contact with the shooter's arm after the ball has already left the shooter's hands?

Thanks!

The answer to your first question: As long as the defender meets the requirments of verticality, the defender cannot be guilty of a foul, and the shooter could possibly be charged with a foul.

The answer to your second question: Yes.

[Nevadaref]

Originally posted by foobar247
i'm no pro at basketball, and have been looking on the net trying to clarify some rules, but have not had any luck. so hopefully someone can clarify this for me:

if a defender is putting a hand up to block a shooter's shot, and as the shooter moves his hands forward to shoot, and makes contact with the defender's arm, is that a foul?

It depends.
The defender is allowed to put up his hands and arms vertically. If he does this and the shooter leans into him it is not a foul. If his arms are up, but not in his vertical plane, say they are angled forward, and the shooter leans in and makes contact the foul is on the defender.

Originally posted by foobar247
also, is it a foul if the defender reaches out to take a swipe(trying to block) at the shooter, and makes contact with the shooter's arm after the ball has already left the shooter's hands?

By rule this is a foul if it is a jump shooter who is hit before returning to the floor.
I have seen this not called a foul many times if the contact does not cause any disadvantage.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The answer to your first question: As long as the defender meets the requirments of verticality, the defender cannot be guilty of a foul, and the shooter could possibly be charged with a foul.

The answer to your second question: Yes.

The answer to the second question is no if the shooter was not put at a disadvantage by the contact. If the hit was after the ball was released it would need to be severe enough to hinder the shooter from returning to the floor normally, but I'd be hard pressed to call a foul on a high five between the shooter and defender when the contact does not alter the shot.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by foobar247

if a defender is putting a hand up to block a shooter's shot, and as the shooter moves his hands forward to shoot, and makes contact with the defender's arm, is that a foul?

You said "is putting". If the defender's hands are still in motion on the way up when the contact occurs, the foul is usually on the defender. If the defender gets his hands straight up within the frame of his body before the contact occurs, it's not a foul on the defender.

[Rich]

Originally posted by blindzebra

The answer to the second question is no if the shooter was not put at a disadvantage by the contact. If the hit was after the ball was released it would need to be severe enough to hinder the shooter from returning to the floor normally, but I'd be hard pressed to call a foul on a high five between the shooter and defender when the contact does not alter the shot.

I disagree with this one. While I'm a firm believer of the Tower Principle, I think that allowing contact like this on the jump shooter DOES cause a disadvantage. Since we're not protecting the shooter all the way to the floor, that jump shooter may pull up short on future trips if he knows contact is going to come "after the shot is released." We need to protect him all the way down to the floor and even afterwards.

To be honest, would there ever be a foul on the 3-point shooter coming down if we applied advantage/disadvantage to whether it only affected THAT shot?

[mick]

Originally posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The answer to your second question: Yes.

Mark T.,
This is a fine and expected answer. It is a call that is expected to be called by most coaches, players and fans.
But, if light contact does not put imbalance to the shooter (airborne, or not), by what rule, or definition, may we substantiate our call?
mick

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

You said "is putting". If the defender's hands are still in motion on the way up when the contact occurs, the foul is usually on the defender. If the defender gets his hands straight up within the frame of his body before the contact occurs, it's not a foul on the defender.

Why? The defender can be raising his arms in the vertical plane and can jump. If they are in that plane, no foul.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

I disagree with this one. While I'm a firm believer of the Tower Principle, I think that allowing contact like this on the jump shooter DOES cause a disadvantage. Since we're not protecting the shooter all the way to the floor, that jump shooter may pull up short on future trips if he knows contact is going to come "after the shot is released." We need to protect him all the way down to the floor and even afterwards.

To be honest, would there ever be a foul on the 3-point shooter coming down if we applied advantage/disadvantage to whether it only affected THAT shot?

The offense should not be awarded more protection. If the contact is hard enough to change the shooters landing than
you have a foul, if not where is the disadvantage? You can apply the NEXT TIME principle to any no-call, so why apply it to a jump shooter?

[Hawks Coach]

Hard (and illegal) contact, before or after shot, gotta call it. Lighter contact, you do need to decide if it is worth calling. Basketball involves a lot of contact, can't blow the whistle for every time there is illegal contact. You do have to consider advantage/disadvantage. I do believe in protecting the airborn shooter, but a light touch on the arm on follow through after release does not need to be called.

I also think that hte closer you get to the asket, the more contact is required to influence the play, in general. There is always a lot of contact with no call in close, but a slight touch on a 3 point shot can alter it enough to cause a miss and should be called sooner than that same touch at 5 feet.

[rulesmaven]

Is it universally accepted when deciding whether there is disadvantage on the second play that the disadvantage must be caused by the illegal contact?

If the defender cannot keep himself in sufficient control to avoid contact (whether that contact ultimately be light or hard), might the defender have gained an illegal advantage by his hindrance of the shot? Put another way, in defending the shot, the defender must keep himself in a position where he does not make illegal contact, and if he does not do so, did he not gain an advantage by hindering the shot illegally? I think of this type of advantage most often when the defender comes a little out of control at the shooter; the shooter gets the ball off cleanly but perhaps not as accurately because he had to shoot over an out of control player. Whether the illegal contact before the shooter returns to the floor is light or hard doesn't seem to always answer the question.

[Adam]

Well put, rulesmaven. This is my inclination on why we should call the foul in this case. I'm still hedging my bets on it, though, until I decide which side of the fence to eat my waffles on.

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rulesmaven
Is it universally accepted when deciding whether there is disadvantage on the second play that the disadvantage must be caused by the illegal contact?

If the defender cannot keep himself in sufficient control to avoid contact (whether that contact ultimately be light or hard), might the defender have gained an illegal advantage by his hindrance of the shot? Put another way, in defending the shot, the defender must keep himself in a position where he does not make illegal contact, and if he does not do so, did he not gain an advantage by hindering the shot illegally? I think of this type of advantage most often when the defender comes a little out of control at the shooter; the shooter gets the ball off cleanly but perhaps not as accurately because he had to shoot over an out of control player. Whether the illegal contact before the shooter returns to the floor is light or hard doesn't seem to always answer the question.

What is the difference between a player out of control running at a shooter and a player under control running at or past a shooter? Both can change the way the shooter will release the ball, so why am I going to officiate one differently than the other?

It still comes down to this, contact that does not hinder normal offensive or defensive movement is incidental. A high five after the ball is 3 feet out of the shooter's hand is by rule incidental, unless it is hard enough to
change the shooter's return to the floor.

[rulesmaven]

"contact that does not hinder normal offensive or defensive movement is incidental"

Agree, of course, with your definition of incidental contact. Isn't that what we're debating -- whether it did hinder normal offensive movement? If the offensive player has to alter the shot or the motion to avoid an onrushing defender who cannot avoid making contact, why is the only advantage/disadvantage question how siginficant the contact was?

Incidentally, arent' there some definitions of "incidental contact" -- maybe the NBA's -- that exclude contact that affects a player's "rhythm"?

[blindzebra]

Originally posted by rulesmaven
"contact that does not hinder normal offensive or defensive movement is incidental"

Agree, of course, with your definition of incidental contact. Isn't that what we're debating -- whether it did hinder normal offensive movement? If the offensive player has to alter the shot or the motion to avoid an onrushing defender who cannot avoid making contact, why is the only advantage/disadvantage question how siginficant the contact was?

Incidentally, arent' there some definitions of "incidental contact" -- maybe the NBA's -- that exclude contact that affects a player's "rhythm"?

What happens before contact has no bearing except to establish legal or illegal contact. If the shooter changes their shot to avoid the defense, how can we then penalize the defense for contact that occurred AFTER this altered shot.

The contact did not hinder the shot, it may effect an airborne shooter's landing and that is what needs to be judged as illegal or incidental.