new rule question

[eastcoastref]

I see that defenders can no longer obstruct the vision of any player, including the one with the ball. Does this mean the defender can no longer put his hand in the shooter's face?

[Tim Roden]

Exactly. That is now a Technical Foul.

[eastcoastref]

I think that's an awfully big rule change, if what you say is correct. Basically, if a player put his hands in the face of a shooter last season, it was called good defense. This season, it will be a technical foul? It won't be easy explaining this one to the coaches.

[Nevadaref]

I disagree with Tim.
Putting a hand in a shooter's face in order to make it harder for him to score is very different from purposely trying to block his vision by placing one's hands very near his eyes.
The first is legitimate defense as the player can still see well enough to play the game and not be in any danger of getting hurt, the second is a tactic which the NFHS does not want HS coaches teaching because it puts a player at risk of being hurt either by being poked in an eye or because he is blinded and can't see other contact coming. That is the reason for the T.

In short, don't over-react to this change. Continue to allow players to play defense, but punish those who in your judgment are only going at an opponent's eyes.

[JRutledge]

That is not what the rule is stating. I realize that the rule might be not written very well. I also realize that this could seen the way you describe it. But in the funny book, there is clearly a description of what the intent of this rule is. I do not see anyone realistically calling a T because someone just put their hand up. This rule was to stop someone from putting the ball directly in the eyes of another player. The fear seems to be that you could poke someone in the eye or scratch their face. I am sure this will have to be cleared up and the casebook might specify the intentions of this rule. It is just clear to me that by the picture on page 7 of the Simplified and Illustrated Rulebook they are trying to prevent a very specific behavior.

I had this happen in a game about 7 years ago. I just called a foul. This happen in an NBA game this past year to Tracy McGrady and I think all was called was a foul. This must have been a problem and this rule was to remedy this action.

Peace

[mick]

OBSTRUCTING OPPONENT'S VISION
"10.3.7 Situation A: Does holding a hand or hands in front of the face of a player who has the ball, by an opponent who is in a legal guarding position, constitute unsporting tactics? Ruling: Yes. The described action is illegal. It is unsporting for a guard to take a position behind a post player, or to take a postion facing an opponent, or to take a postion with his/her back to the ball and facing the opponent and then in either case, wave or hold hands in front of the opponent's eye's so that the opponent cannot see. Holding or waving hands near the eye for the ostensible purpose of obstructing an opponent's vision is unsporting. (10-3-7; 10-6-1)"

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick
OBSTRUCTING OPPONENT'S VISION
"10.3.7 Situation A: Does holding a hand or hands in front of the face of a player who has the ball, by an opponent who is in a legal guarding position, constitute unsporting tactics? Ruling: Yes. The described action is illegal. It is unsporting for a guard to take a position behind a post player, or to take a postion facing an opponent, or to take a postion with his/her back to the ball and facing the opponent and then in either case, wave or hold hands in front of the opponent's eye's so that the opponent cannot see. Holding or waving hands near the eye for the ostensible purpose of obstructing an opponent's vision is unsporting. (10-3-7; 10-6-1)"

And furthermore.......

POE 4A- Face Guarding- "Face guarding could occur with a single hand and a player's hand(s) do NOT have to be waving; the hand(s) could be stationary and still restrict the opponent's vision.The committee does not intend for 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 restricts vision"

When does a "hand in the face" become "intentionally restricting vision"? I don't have a clue. This is gonna be a fun one, folks. Handle with care. It better be pretty damn obvious before you should even think of calling it, imo. The first time that you call this, I guarantee that the coach whose team that you called it on is gonna be screaming for the same call on his opponents every single time that they get a hand in someone's face on defense.

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Sep 22nd, 2004 at 11:32 AM]

[mick]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
When does a "hand in the face" become "intentionally restricting vision"?

When the Fox eats.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by mick

When the Fox eats.

Can't argue with that. Can only hope that the fox does eat at the same time and in the same way all the time though. If not, shudder........

[Tim Roden]

Originally posted by Nevadaref
I disagree with Tim.
Putting a hand in a shooter's face in order to make it harder for him to score is very different from purposely trying to block his vision by placing one's hands very near his eyes.
The first is legitimate defense as the player can still see well enough to play the game and not be in any danger of getting hurt, the second is a tactic which the NFHS does not want HS coaches teaching because it puts a player at risk of being hurt either by being poked in an eye or because he is blinded and can't see other contact coming. That is the reason for the T.

In short, don't over-react to this change. Continue to allow players to play defense, but punish those who in your judgment are only going at an opponent's eyes.

I didn't say I would call it. I am telling you on the test that it will be a technical foul.

[ncref]

I also agree that the interpretation of this rule amongst officials will be different. I feel that if everyone just uses common sense and their good judgement there should be no problems with this rule change.

IMO it should already be common sense if a player is putting his hands near an opponents eyes that it would be unsporting. I dont see why we need a rule for this one.

[Tim Roden]

Where we need this rule is for that guy who is looking for an outlet pass and the defender is putting his hands in his face. It is totally unsporting.

[Back In The Saddle]

Originally posted by mick

When the Fox eats.

huh?

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by Back In The Saddle

huh?

When the whistle (Fox40) blows...

[JRutledge]