Hand check in the face

[milesu]

The defender puts his hand in the face, about 1-2 feet away when the offense player shoots. Is this a technical or personal foul or neither?

[ref18]

I'd say neither. I think there's a case play that addresses face guarding the shooter like this as being legal, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

The correct term is face guarding, not hand checking. Hand checking refers to contact. I hope I never see someone hand check the shooter, because it's likely that person will get an intentional or maybe even flagerant foul for it.

[Adam]

No contact, no personal foul.
This is also not a T, and is specifically mentioned as ok.

It's nothing.

[bradfordwilkins]

No contact?

I don't see what would be illegal unless he was talking as well, which could maybe be construed as taunting. But if his hand is fast enough to stay in front of the face without contact, good for him.

If the offense intiates contact with his head, I may even have a no-call.

But if the offensive player makes a legit basketball move, any contact at all I think is a foul.

[Adam]

If the hand is 1 to 2 feet away, nothing. If the hand is 1 to 2 inches from the eyes, then it's a T by rule. "Face guarding" is illegal, "getting a hand in the face" of a shooter is legal. The difference really needs to be understood.

[LouisianaDave]

According to the new rule if you intentionally put ur hand in a shooters face to intentionally block his view for the shot this is a T. In Louisiana, at our rules clinic they emphasized this point very hard. I dont have my rule book handy at this moment, but when I get a chance I will post the rule.

[Daryl H. Long]

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.